From Theory to Policy: Examining Factors Shaping Taiwanese Students’ Intentions to Enter Civil Service Through PSM Modeling

From Theory to Policy: Examining Factors Shaping Taiwanese Students’ Intentions to Enter Civil Service Through PSM Modeling | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article From Theory to Policy: Examining Factors Shaping Taiwanese Students’ Intentions to Enter Civil Service Through PSM Modeling Wei-Hua Chen, Tzu-Chin Chou, Ji-Jen Hwang, Szu Szu Ling This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114125/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates factors influencing Taiwanese college students' intentions to enter the civil service, a critical issue for public policy in Asia where governments often struggle to attract young talent into public service. Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach bridging public administration, sociology, and governance studies, the research applies confirmatory factor analysis and a LISREL-based structural equation model to analyze data from a 2023 national survey of Taiwanese civil service exam candidates on Public Service Motivation (PSM). The analysis reveals that both intrinsic drivers (such as commitment to public interest) and extrinsic factors (such as job security and perceived fairness) significantly shape students’ aspirations for government careers. These findings affirm PSM theory in Taiwan’s context and underscore its applicability in Asian settings, indicating that personal values and contextual expectations jointly drive youth interest in public service. Policy implications are substantial: to attract and retain talented youth in government, civil service recruitment and exam reforms in Taiwan—and similar Asian contexts—should nurture idealistic motivations while addressing pragmatic career concerns. By integrating cross-disciplinary perspectives with advanced modeling, this study contributes original evidence to the discourse on public sector talent management and offers actionable insights for civil service human resource reforms aimed at enhancing youth engagement in governance across Asia. Business and commerce/Business and management Social science/Business and management Social science/Politics and international relations Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Social science/Social policy Public service motivation government bureaucrats survey government bureaucrats reform LISREL modeling Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction “All irresponsible phenomena are due to a strong sense of individualism and selfishness” (Chiang Ching-kuo, 1978). Both Chiang Ching-kuo and Taiwan’s current top leader have further encouraged young students with the remark “The times test the youth and the youth creates the times.” These quotes have remained relevant because an ambitious government relies on a galaxy of talented human resources, and young citizens constitute a potential talent pool for Taiwan’s civil service. This study aimed to answer two questions: What factors affect young citizens’ willingness to hold public office? What factors motivate them to pursue civil service careers? From the perspective of the well-known public service motivation (PSM) theory, we delved into the correlation between Taiwanese college students’ PSM intensity and their willingness (i.e., motivation) to hold public office. Taiwan’s current national exam system comprises a civil service exam and a specialized vocational and technical personnel exam. These exams are held 19 times per year. The civil service exam is the main channel through which government agencies recruit talented personnel. Taiwan’s general and advanced (i.e., Level 3) civil service exams are held yearly in mid-July. Most candidates take the exams at that time. According to statistics released by the Ministry of Examination (2024), the number of candidates for Taiwan’s civil service exam has gradually decreased from over 283,000 in 2006 to approximately 239,000 by 2021. Obviously, the number of Taiwanese civil service candidates has shown a declining trend. This concerning trend raises the following question: What factors affect Taiwanese college students’ PSM? According to statistics released by the government of Taiwan (R.O.C), 24.9% of Taiwan’s new college graduates in 2022 earned only a base salary (TWD 25,250). Their median salary was TWD 30,000, indicating that half of the new graduates received an initial salary of less than TWD 30,000. Furthermore, the median salary of new graduates with a degree in an art discipline, such as catering and hospitality or life services, was lower at TWD 27,000 (Lin & Jian, 2023). It is generally believed that the volume of civil service candidates has been affected primarily by the size of the young and middle-aged population (i.e., aged 18–35 years), the decline in the number of college students, and the changes that have been observed in the economic climate and in employment trends. In response to the impact of sub-replacement fertility, researchers conducted a cross-comparison of national exam candidates and new college graduates. The results showed a significant decline in the proportion of new college graduate candidates for Taiwan’s Level 3 and general civil service exam in the period 2012–2021. Specifically, the figure remained in the range of 18%–20% from 2012 to 2018 and decreased sharply to only 4%–8% from 2019 onwards (Jiang, 2022). The Ministry of Examination has identified this trend as problematic. For the three decades since Perry and Wise (1990) proposed the PSM concept, it has been among the hottest topics in public administration academia in Taiwan and abroad (Brewer & Selden, 1998). Three tides of PSM research have spawned related empirical studies and fueled theoretical development (Perry, 2014) in line with the high expectations of relevant business and academic circles. However, the resultant PSM-related research findings have played a very limited role in solving substantive problems. Critics have explained this by pointing to conceptual uncertainty and suboptimal measurement methods (Bozeman & Su, 2015; O’Leary, 2022; Prebble, 2016). For example, Prebble (2016) reviewed seminal PSM-related articles that were published in the past decades and identified the following three issues as the focuses of the research and the issues the researchers attempted to address: describing human nature in terms of public choice theory, unveiling the reason for the long-term sustainability of the spirit of public service, and uncovering a theoretical basis for incentivizing public servants. A review of PSM studies that were conducted in the past two decades has shown that the core concerns of PSM research have extended from measurement scales, dimensional measurement, and empirical testing (Crewson, 1997; Francois, 2000; Kim, 2009; Perry & Wise, 1990) to encompass the inference of causal correlations (Chen et al., 2014). On the verge of the third tide of PSM theory development, PSM researchers shifted their core concern to devising strategies to respond to the drivers of PSM. This shift led to a controversy regarding whether PSM derives from personality traits as trait theory posits or from psychological states as state theory posits (Perry, 2014). Mussagulova et al. (2019) incorporated these views of PSM in their examination of the impact of Taiwanese civil service pension reform on PSM. Li (2020) distinguished between in-service civil servants and members of the general public who showed a willingness to hold public office; that scholar analyzed the latter and reported results that have provided insights into the types of people who are willing to hold public office and the factors that motivate potential candidates to pursue civil service careers. If PSM is stimulated by a certain personality trait, it should remain stable and consistent, whereas if it is stimulated by a particular state, then the intensity of people’s PSM can be expected to vary with both time and external environmental stimuli. State theory has provided the basis for recent studies on the impact of government reforms (e.g., pension reform) on PSM (Lee, 2020, p. 59). Although money or other external rewards are not the primary drivers of PSM (Huang & Li, 2015), it must be noted that, from the perspective of comparative public administration, the retirement pensions and salary levels of civil servants in Taiwan are significantly lower than those of their counterparts in adjacent countries. This discrepancy makes it difficult for the civil service to recruit qualified talents. For various reasons (e.g., ongoing sluggish employment growth and parliament’s recent successive retirement pension reform), society has gradually come to believe that the salaries, welfare, and social security of military, governmental, and educational staff have been reduced remarkably. This widespread notion has led to the formation of popular opinions such as the “Iron rice bowl is rusty” and “Civil servants have fallen from the altar”. These opinions have, in turn, not only impacted the morale of the current civil service but have also made young students unwilling to become civil servants that is, negative public sentiment regarding the civil service has affected whether young people choose to hold public office. Consequently, Brown (1998) has indicated that Taiwan’s civil service system may proceed toward a legitimacy crisis (Chen, 2023) and may concurrently face a brain drain. Most existing Taiwanese PSM studies have investigated the measurement and influence of PSM. Specifically, measurement-oriented PSM studies have attempted to identify the antecedent variables of PSM, and influence-oriented PSM studies have examined the influence of PSM on individual behavior, professional competence, and organizational performance. Recently, scholars have reviewed the recent findings and bottlenecks of PSM research (Chen & Hsu, 2016). Few studies have explored the explanatory factors underlying well-educated young college students’ willingness to hold public office. Furthermore, even empirical studies on the influencing factors of PSM, which are a subset of the larger body of research that has been conducted on different social groups’ willingness to hold public office (such studies entail measuring the antecedent variables of PSM), have drawn inconsistent conclusions that have perpetuated the confusion surrounding this topic. This study targeted members of the general public who are willing to hold public office––specifically, college students––and examined the possible influencing factors of their willingness to pursue civil service careers. In-service civil servants were excluded. Regarding the research design, we statistically analyzed the survey results of the general public (i.e., persons eligible for Taiwan’s civil service exam), which we obtained from a sample of the 2023 Taiwan Government Bureaucrat Survey (TGBS; Chen et al., 2023). We identified the influencing factors of college students' willingness to hold public office and constructed corresponding linear structural relations (LISREL) models. We then conducted first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) followed by structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to test the relationships between the influencing factors and construct a causal model. Consequently, the findings of this study reveal, to some extent, Taiwanese college students’ major motivations to hold public office. The findings, based on innovative modeling, have both theoretical and policy implications. Theoretical Basis The drivers of PSM can be broadly categorized into individual and external factors. Individual factors include demographic variables (e.g., education level, family background, gender, and age), income incentives, the socialization process, and intrinsic motivators (e.g., self-fulfillment, commitment to public welfare, and values; Perry & Wise, 1990). College students are a well-educated social group; therefore, their affective factors (e.g., interest in policy and institutional participation, organizational commitment, compassion, self-sacrifice, and innovation ability) may affect the intensity of their PSM (Ciou, 2023; Li, 2018). College students’ organizational environment and external reference groups may also affect the intensity of their PSM. For example, most college courses are designed to create a pro-publicness environment in which the formation of PSM is intended to ensure that students’ personal development is aligned with the goals of higher education; this is in keeping with the fact that governmental financial support for higher education aims mainly to promote the cultivation of national talents in addition to ensuring education equality (Li et al., 2019; Wilson, 2000). The above discussion has demonstrated the important role of personal and institutional factors in stimulating college students’ PSM. Who Has PSM? From an individual perspective, PSM refers to individuals’ intrinsic motivation to engage in behaviors that are beneficial to the public interest. Conceptually, a public interest-oriented behavioral pattern may be due to four motivations: egoism, collectivism, altruism, and principlism (Batson et al., 2011). The differences among them lie in the goal of each motivational factor, particularly the presence of non-egoistical motivation, which falls within the scope of motivational psychology. Specifically, the goal of egoists is to seek self-interest whereas the behavioral objective of collectivists is to improve the welfare of the group to which they belong to. Altruists, on the other hand, devise strategies to increase the welfare of one or more other members, and principlists adhere to one or more ethical principles. Obviously, the latter three motivations cannot be categorized as egoism; they fall under the altruistic motivation for public service. All four motivational factors are largely useful for observing the intensity of PSM and thus for empirically examining the pursuit of public interest more extensively and accurately. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the four motivations from the perspective of motivational psychology. Egoism . In the egoism-motivated behavioral pattern, individuals participate in public service to receive personal rewards such as social status, reputational gains, and promotion opportunities. Egoism is a common PSM, especially among young and inexperienced civil servants (Perry & Wise, 1990). This fact underscores the importance of introducing utilitarian incentives to public service. However, excessive egoistic motivation may lead to economic individualism (wherein civil servants pursue their personal interests over the public interest) and may also promote market-based values among civil servants at the expense of common interests (Bozeman, 2007). Moreover, egoistic motivation may manifest in psychological contracts, a phenomenon that falls within the category of motivational psychology. A psychological contract is a type of implicit contract that stipulates mutual expectations and obligations between employees (i.e., civil servants) and employers (i.e., governments; Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Psychological contracts are in line with two fundamental principles: reciprocity (i.e., employees expect to be compensated fairly and rewarded for their efforts) and trust (i.e., employees believe that their employers will fulfil their promises and commitments). Psychological contracts may face various challenges such as misunderstandings or misconceptions between employees and employers regarding their mutual expectations. They may also be disrupted by contractual breaches (i.e., when either party fails to fulfill his or her promises or obligations) and by the alteration of the expected conditions pertaining to material incentives owing to changes in external circumstances (e.g., economic downturns or technological changes). If employers break their original promises to employees in the process of organizational change, the employees will be dissatisfied with the breach of the psychological contract as evidenced by the ongoing civil servant pension reforms that governments worldwide have undertaken. Mussagulova et al. (2019) conceptualized pension reform as a breach of the psychological contract between governments and civil servants. Those scholars investigated whether pension reform causes civil servants to regret their career choices. The results showed that PSM, as a mediating variable, intensifies the impacts of psychological contract breach and civil servants’ negative perceptions of pension reform. Collectivism . Collectivistic motivation refers to individuals’ loyalty to their groups or organizations. It entails their participation in public service for the purpose of improving the overall welfare of those groups. From ancient Greece and Rome to the Middle Ages to modern times, this has been a core topic of political and philosophical works (O’Toole et al., 2010). Studies have shown that collectivism plays an important role in public service provision. In a team-oriented environment in particular, collectivism is critical to achieving good organizational performance; it is also beneficial to fostering teamwork and collaboration and commitment to the organization. Moreover, collectivism is closely related to the perceived value of public interests; when individuals perceive the interests of political entities as taking precedence over the beliefs, values, and attitudes of individuals and organizations, the motivation of individual behaviors will be voluntarily subordinated to the collective interest (Vandenabeele, 2007). Therefore, Bozeman (2007, p. 86) defined public interests to conceptualize, explain, and sometimes specify collective interests. Common interests, public values, and public interests have garnered much social attention and have also become a core concern of political debate. Admittedly, public interests cover different levels in both civil society and governments; examples are voluntary services, civic engagement, and public responsibility. Altruism . Altruistic motivation is based on selfless care and compassion for others. People who are altruistically motivated to enter public service are committed to helping others and to improving society. Altruism is a strong driver of PSM, especially with respect to altruistic occupations in, for example, social work, education, and health care (Andreoni, 1990). The motivational psychology perspective views PSM as rooted in empathy and in a willingness to sacrifice some of one’s personal interests for the public interests. This type of altruistic PSM is mutually compatible with concepts such as pro-socialism and intrinsic motivation, but it is also prone to be connotatively overlapped and confounded with them (Bozeman & Su, 2015; Huang, 2019). Principlism . Principlism-based motivation is stimulated by strong moral beliefs and values. Principlists are even willing to self-sacrifice to fulfil collective interests. They view public service as a moral obligation, and they hold public office to promote justice, transparency, integrity, and accountability. To some extent, principlism falls under personality trait theory, which posits that PSM is an inherent and relatively stable individual personality trait. Holders of public office tend to pursue social justice while showing altruism and caring for others. Trait theory contends that individuals with these personality traits are attracted to service-oriented public offices and that they regard engaging in public service as a means of self-fulfillment. Principlism is an important element of PSM, particularly among high-ranking civil servants, because it can ensure that public servants abide by ethical norms and engage in fair decision-making (Brewer et al., 2000). Based on the above, we integrated motivational psychology (i.e., intrinsic motivation) and external institutional factors (i.e., utilitarian motivation) into an operable theoretical framework for exploring the connotations and classifications of PSM. Regarding intrinsic motivations, we suggest that PSM drivers should include at least a commitment to the public interest alongside empathy (i.e., compassion) and self-sacrifice (Kim et al., 2013). Equally important are utilitarian motivations formed by institutional factors in the external system environment. We propose the following hypotheses on the relevant dimensions and factors. H1: The intensity of college students’ PSM is positively correlated with their willingness to apply for public office (as an indicator of their commitment to the public interest). H2: The intensity of college students’ PSM is positively correlated with their pursuit of a high social status, job security and promotion, and organizational belongingness. H3: The intensity of college students’ PSM is affected by their discipline of study, the courses they take, and the extracurricular activities in which they participate. College Students’ Innovation Potential and National (Political) Identity Perry and Wise’s (1990) pioneering study on PSM primarily investigated how the intensity and connotations of PSM are affected by six dimensions: civil servants’ attraction to public policy-making (APM), commitment to the public interest (CPI), embodiment of social justice, demonstration of civic responsibility, embodiment of compassion, and demonstration of self-sacrifice. Perry’s (1996) factor analysis-based continuous study further identified four subdimensions of the influencing factors of PSM: the derivation of a sense of accomplishment from participation in policy-making, a commitment to the public interest, compassion for external things, and self-sacrifice. Perry (1996) developed corresponding test scales that exerted a far-reaching influence on PSM research in the public administration field over the subsequent two decades. As a complement to the motivational psychology perspective espoused above, Taiwan’s academic community recently developed locally applicable PSM dimensions and scales (Huang, 2019; Sun & Syu, 2014). This advancement has shifted the research perspective to public employees’ emotional intelligence and innovation abilities (Ciou, 2023; Dong & Liou, 2020). Taiwanese public administration researchers have successively conducted exploratory studies on the correlations between the connotations of PSM and civil servants’ innovation abilities (Li, 2018). Among them, Ciou (2023) presented evidence of definite correlations between the connotations of PSM and employees’ innovation abilities and confirmed the mediating role of emotional intelligence in those relationships. Other studies have shown that PSM, which involves rational, normative, and affective factors, can influence individuals’ behavior and performance in the public sector. Civil servants with high-intensity PSM are intrinsically motivated by altruism and pro-sociality and are thus more likely to exhibit innovative attitudes and behaviors (Amabile et al., 2005). Moreover, PSM is known to enhance emotional intelligence; it has also been proven to be critical for effective decision-making and problem-solving and for good job performance, all of which are important components of innovation. Indeed, the intrinsic motivation (particularly affective motivation) included in PSM may push civil servants to participate in decision-making participation to derive a sense of accomplishment. It may also lead to the improvement of their work environment and their organizational performance, thus potentially contributing to innovative practice. Civil servants’ PSM could therefore catalyze innovative solutions that enhance creativity, problem-solving skills, and responses to societal challenges (Miao et al., 2018). Although numerous studies on PSM and civil servants’ innovation abilities have been conducted in Taiwan and abroad, few have examined whether potential candidates’ willingness to hold public office is affected by their personality traits (e.g., innovation potential and emotional intelligence) and their attitude towards and enthusiasm for policy participation. Studies on the connotations of PSM and young people’s willingness to hold public office are even fewer. These research gaps necessitated our attempt to clarify related concepts in this study. First, the public interests that college students perceive may differ from the traditional definition of public interests. Characterized by publicity and reasonableness, public interests are traditionally defined as benefits that are derived from public affairs and equally shared among everyone. However, college students’ perceptions of public interests may emphasize individuals’ awareness of and participation in public interests, the links between public and personal interests, and the importance of values such as social fairness and justice. Therefore, college students’ definition of public interests may contain more personal values and social consciousness than the conventional definition. Chen and Hsu (2016) perused previous PSM studies and compiled at least 23 definitions of public interests. Owing to college students’ unconventional perception of public interests, the connotations of PSM in their minds also differ accordingly from the traditionally held connotations. Amidst the current relations across the Taiwan strait, Taiwanese youth understand public interests differently; this may involve different standpoints on national reunification (or national identity and political ideology). Such a situation complicates substantive studies on college students’ PSM. However, we can reasonably infer that young college students who possess a strong national identity desire to enter the civil service because it is responsible for national policy implementation; they may even have a sense of belonging to it, and consequently, they have high-intensity PSM (Annen et al., 2015). Based on the above literature review, this study further investigated college students as potential candidates for public office. We sought to determine whether there exists a correlation between their PSM intensity and their willingness to hold public office. Next, we refer to the main dimensions and subdimensions of PSM and discuss the influencing factors of college students’ willingness to hold public office. We then describe how we inputted these factors into a statistical methodology to construct prediction models. We propose the following related hypotheses. H4: The intensity of college students’ PSM is affected by their parents’ education level, household income, and political participation. H5: The intensity of college students’ PSM is affected by their degree of governmental trust, their sense of social participation, and their self-value identification. H6: Public office internship experience increases the intensity of college students’ PSM. Study Design and Methodology Study Sample and Questionnaire Design We obtained our research sample from the TGBS Phase III data (public version) maintained by Academia Sinica’s Survey Research Data Archive (SRDA). The data were released on October 6, 2023. To facilitate further data collection in this study, we conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews during a home phone opinion poll of Taiwanese college student respondents (including students enrolled at 5- and 2-year junior colleges and students with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree) who had expressed an intent to apply for public office and their parents. To compensate for the lack of respondent data, our sampling method entailed randomly selecting home phone numbers, randomly selecting the last two phone numbers, and targeting those respondents and their parents. We also distributed a pair of questionnaires to college students and their parents, respectively. In the questionnaire design stage, we held an expert seminar to determine the survey content. The survey items covered (1) college students’ willingness to apply for public office, the types of civil service positions in which they have shown an interest, their reasons for applying for those jobs, and their degree of understanding of public office; and (2) college students’ parents’ willingness to encourage their children to apply for public office, their reasons for promoting a civil service career, and their degree of understanding of public office. According to the SRDA, the original sample size was 1,526. In our study, after we excluded data with missing values and questionnaire responses with missing information, we had 666 valid questionnaires. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis, factor analyses, reliability analysis, and modeling analysis successively. Model Framework Based on the findings of our literature review, we further constructed four second-order factors, namely importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6), as illustrated in Figure 1. Further factorial classifications are as follows. Importance of public office (B3) comprises three first-order factors: social perception (B3A), security and promotion (B3B), and fitness (B3C). Innovation potential (B4) comprises two first-order factors: planning and self-restraint (B4A) and risk-taking (B4B). Political maneuvering (B5) comprises two first-order factors: responsible government (B5A) and negative politics (B5B). PSM (B6) comprises three first-order factors: public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C). [Fig 1 about here] Data Processing and Modeling Analysis We conducted statistical processing in two steps. First, we analyzed the respondents’ background data, descriptive statistics, and related factors with reference to the SPSS data files in the SRDA. Second, we performed modeling analysis using the modeling software SmartPLS 4. During the modeling process, construct reliability ( CR ) complied with the following four rules (Hair et al., 2019). First, the standard load λ should be at least 0.5, and its ideal value should be at least 0.7. 2. Second, to confirm convergent validity, the variance extracted ( VE ) should be at least 0.5.3. Third, to confirm discriminant validity, the VE of any two factors should be greater than the square of their correlation coefficient. Fourth, to confirm suitability for convergence or internal consistency, the CR should be at least 0.7. The VE and CR are calculated as follows. In the above equations, λ denotes the standard factor loading. VE is equal to the sum of squares of all standard factor loading values (i.e., the squared multiple correlation coefficient) divided by the number of items, and a VE value of at least 0.5 implies suitability for convergence. δ in the CR denotes the error of a construct, and a CR value of at least 0.7 implies high reliability. In this study, we calculated the VE and the CR using self-designed Microsoft Excel equations. Results Respondent Profile The final valid research sample comprised 666 college students. Of those, 316 (47.4%) and 350 (52.6%) were males and females, respectively. Of all the respondents, 241 (36.2%) and 425 (63.8%) were enrolled in public and private colleges, respectively. Moreover, 347 (52.1%), 155 (23.3%), and 150 (22.5%) attended colleges in northern, central, and southern Taiwan, respectively. Seven (1.1%) attended colleges in eastern Taiwan, and the same proportion of the sample attended off-island colleges. Regarding the respondents’ years of study, 161 (24.2%) were in their freshman year, 168 were (25.2%) in their sophomore year, 157 (23.6%) were in their junior year, 137 (20.6%) were in their senior year, 5 (0.8%) were in their Grade 5 year, and one (0.2%) was in their Grade 6 year. Thirty-seven respondents (5.6%) exhibited missing values or had omitted answers. Regarding the respondents’ disciplines of study, 136 (20.4%) were in the humanities, 247 (37.1%) were in the social sciences, and 279 (41.9%) were in science and technology. The respondents could have chosen to work in government sectors, private firms, or non-profit organizations. Persons aspiring to employment in a government sector must take the national civil service exam. Therefore, we collected ratings indicating each respondent’s degree of confidence in their ability to pass the civil service exam. The confidence scores were in the range of 0–9 and were distributed as follows: 13 respondents (2%) had a confidence score of 0, 4 (0.6%) had a score of 1, 4 (0.6%) had a score of 2, 40 (6%) had a score of 3, 49 (7.4%) had a score of 4, 165 (24.8%) had a score of 5, 134 (20.1%) had a score of 6, 170 (25.5%) had a score of 7, 57 (8.6%) had a score of 8, 29 (4.4%) had a score of 9, and 1 (0.2%) did not provide an answer. We noted that approximately 70% of the valid sample had a confidence score in the range of 5–7. Regarding the respondents’ future employment plans, they all reported considering government sectors, private firms, or non-profit organizations. Their specific job preferences were distributed as follows: 257 (38.6%) preferred a government sector, 355 (53.3%) preferred a private firm, and 54 (8.1%) preferred a non-profit organization (e.g., a foundation, research institute, or school). Descriptive Statistics Per academic recommendations, descriptive statistics for modeling should include, in addition to the mean value (M) and the standard deviation (SD), skewness and kurtosis to confirm a normal distribution of items (Hair et al., 2019). We used the codes available in the SRDA (i.e., B3, B4, B5, and B6 for the four major factors) and removed the original baselines of the items during descriptive statistical analysis (e.g., B3_1 was converted to B31). The mean scores we obtained from the respondents’ 6-point Likert scale ratings of all 37 items in this study (including the B51r and B53r inverse questions) were distributed within the range of 2.78–5.34. The mean values for the four factors were distributed in the following ranges: 3.15–5.34 for B3 (importance; the factor was named subsequently), 2.78–4.72 for B4 (identification), 2.92–3.88 for B5 (level of agreement, including the B51r and B53r inverse questions), and 3.77–5.08 for B6 (level of agreement). The skewness and kurtosis values for all 37 items were in the range of -2.03–0.49 and -0.81–5.4, respectively. We applied the academic standard according to which an absolute skewness value of below 3 and a kurtosis value of below 7 indicate a normal distribution (Hair et al., 2024; Table 1). [Table 1 about here] Factor Analysis The factors were not clearly named in the SRDA. To begin determining names, we conducted four separate factor analyses on the ten items under the original B3 (B3_1–B3_10), the six items under the original B4 (B4_1–B4_6), the six items under the original B5 (B5_1–B5_6), and the 15 items under the original B6 (B6_1–B6_15). These factor analyses entailed the use of orthogonal (principal component plus maximum variance) and oblique (principal axis factor plus Promax) methods. Because the orthogonal results and explained variance for the original B3, B4, B5, and B6 were all superior to their oblique results, we used the orthogonal results. Table 2 presents the factor analysis results. We carefully checked the original meanings of the English items in the theoretical literature and repeatedly confirmed the content of the SRDA research report; only then did we name the four second-order factors and the ten first-order factors as follows: (1) importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6); and (2) social perception (B3A), security and promotion (B3B), fitness (B3C), planning and self-restraint (B4A), risk-taking (B4B), responsible government (B5A), negative politics (B5B), public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C). [Table 2 about here] We calculated the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin ( KMO ) measure of sampling adequacy prior to conducting the factor analyses. If the KMO value is below 0.5, the academic standard states that conducting factor analysis is inappropriate. However, the larger the KMO value, the lower the coefficient of partial correlation between variables and the more effective the extraction of common factors in factor analyses. In this study, the KMO value of PSM (B6) was above 0.9, indicating high suitability for factor analysis. Contrastingly, the KMO values of the importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), and political maneuvering (B5) were within the range of 0.715–0.779, indicating moderate suitability for factor analysis. Furthermore, the explained variances of the four second-order factors were in the range of 59.29%–62.51%, indicating good factor analysis results. Therefore, the factor analysis results we obtained in this study are good overall and are worthy of use in subsequent studies. Reliability Analysis To ensure high reliability and research continuity, we used the manual subscales and total scale in SPSS to confirm Cronbach’s α . We opted for this method instead of computing Cronbach’s α in SmartPLS mainly because of the suspected data embellishment issue associated with simulation software such as SmartPLS. We referenced the factor analysis results and selected ten factors for reliability analysis. The factors covered all 37 items (including the two inverse questions). The Cronbach’s α values for the subscales of the ten factors (including the two inverse questions) were in the range of 0.44–0.83, indicating medium to high reliability. The Cronbach’s α value for the total scale was 0.89, indicating high reliability. The Cronbach’s α values for the four factors were below 0.7, which is the threshold for high reliability. The negative politics factor (B5B) involved two inverse questions that were answered during the reliability analysis; however, the subscales indicated only moderate reliability (0.44). The academic standard recommends the removal of the two inverse questions with extremely small Cronbach’s α values, but studies have demonstrated the need to retain them. Regarding the item that reads “Most legislators speak mainly on the behalf of large consortia” (B51), the mean Cronbach’s α value of the college student respondents who showed a willingness to hold public office was 4.08 in the absence of the inverse question and 2.92 in the presence of the inverse question. These results revealed a severe issue because they indicated that 68% (converted from the mean value of 4.08) of the respondents agreed with the above statement. Regarding the item that reads “Today, it is hard to get things done in government sectors without giving officials red packets” (B53), the mean Cronbach’s α value was 3.12 in the absence of the inverse question and 3.88 in the presence of the inverse question. The increase in the mean Cronbach’s α value in the presence of the inverse question suggests a higher level of agreement with the practice of refraining from bribing legislators. Opposing bribery is normal, but the fact that nearly 52% (converted from the mean value of 3.12) of the college student respondents agreed to monetarily incentivizing government officials during routine government business is concerning. Therefore, although the academic standard recommends deleting the two inverse questions, they were very important in practice in this study because they allowed us to conduct a tracking survey of positive politics. We will retain the inverse questions in future research to further elucidate the improvement trajectory of positive politics and preserve the quality of the scales. The presence of low reliability items adversely affects modeling quality, but we adopted LISREL modeling in this study, marking the first time the methodology has been used in Taiwan. For this reason, our study may be a useful reference for subsequent modeling or relevant research (Table 3). [Table 3 about here] Modeling Analysis In this study, we initially used the LISREL approach and conducted first- and second-order CFA accordingly. However, the reliability analysis results showed that the inverse questions under the negative politics factor (B5B) adversely affected the modeling quality. Consequently, we adopted LISREL modeling, marking the first use of the methodology in Taiwan. We then used SmartPLS to conduct SEM analysis with a focus on the causality between the factors and the testing of the hypotheses regarding the relationships between the factors. The four factors of importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6) are second-order factors in the model diagram. Each comprises two or three first-order factors. Specifically, the importance of public office (B3) comprises three first-order factors, namely social perception (B3A), security and promotion (B3B), and fitness (B3C). Innovation potential (B4) comprises two first-order factors, namely planning and self-restraint (B4A) and risk-taking (B4B). Political maneuvering (B5) comprises two first-order factors, namely responsible government (B5A) and negative politics (B5B). Note that two inverse questions were introduced to the negative politics factor (B5B); otherwise, the SmartPLS-based analysis results contained symbols indicating failure mode coefficients. PSM (B6) comprises three first-order factors, namely public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C). Regarding causality, the importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), and political maneuvering (B5) all served as causes in regression analyses; they are therefore independent or exogeneous variables. Innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6) were arrowed; that is, they occupied the position of effects in the causality relationships. Therefore, they are dependent variables or, to use the academic term, endogenous variables. However, PSM (B6) emerged as the only genuine endogenous variable (i.e., it pointed at no factor) whereas innovation potential (B4) and political maneuvering (B5) are both endogenous and exogenous variables. As Figure 2 illustrates, we found very strong or significantly positive correlations among the four second-order factors (i.e., B3, B4, B5, and B6). These results suggest that we have constructed a pioneering model that has referential reference significance to Taiwan’s civil service system. Unfortunately, the only nonsignificant correlation coefficient was between political maneuvering (B5) and negative politics (B5B), although the value ( p = 0.054) was very close to the threshold value (0.05). This section has been largely diagrammatical. We will discuss the causality between the factors next. [Fig 2 about here] Hypothesis Testing Figure 2 displays the hypothesis test results we obtained through SmartPLS-based SEM analysis. Table 4 shows that all five hypotheses were acceptable and that all exhibited very strong or significantly positive correlations. [Table 4 about here] Modeling Evaluation Table 5 presents the modeling evaluation results, which showed marginal acceptability of security and promotion (B3B), planning and self-restraint (B4A), and responsible government (B5A). This is mainly because the VE values of these three factors were all 0.48 and the CR values of the same factors were all above 0.7. The modeling evaluation results for the seven other factors all led to a conclusion of acceptability. [Table 5 about here] Discussion We proposed the following five hypothesis paths: (H1) importance of public office (B3) → innovation potential (B4), (H2) importance of public office (B3) → political maneuvering (B5), (H3) importance of public office (B3) → PSM (B6), (H4) innovation potential (B4) → PSM (B6), and (H5) political maneuvering (B5) → PSM (B6). The hypothesis test results confirmed very strong or significantly positive correlations for all paths. Specifically, the importance of public office showed a positive correlation with innovation potential, political maneuvering, and PSM. However, the influence of negative politics on college students must be addressed. When governmental and civil organizations cultivate positive politics, they aim to provide healthy and relevant topics. This is also an important part of civil service training and education. The hypothesis test results also confirmed very strong or significantly positive correlations between innovation potential (B4) and PSM (B6) and between political maneuvering (B5) and PSM (B6). Additionally, innovation potential and political maneuvering, which were identified as both exogenous and endogenous variables, showed positive correlations with PSM, a genuine endogenous variable. This study proved the importance of these factors to the screening, selection, training, and education of civil servants. Our research contributes to the discourse populated by previous related studies. Perry ( 1996 ) obtained CFA results that supported the classification of PSM into four factors, namely APM, CPI, compassion, and self-sacrifice. That scholar developed a multidimensional PSM scale encompassing these factors. In this study, we carefully perused the literature and the names of the relevant items in English. From this exercise, we derived three factors: public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C). These factors represent a great research achievement. This study has properly named the factors through factor analysis involving numerous previous studies. Moreover, our findings have reconfirmed the applicability of Perry’s classic theory in the Taiwanese context. Moreover, we obtained modeling evaluation results that indicated the marginal acceptability of the three factors of security and promotion (B3B), planning and self-restraint (B4A), and responsible government (B5A; Table 4 ). These results suggest that the corresponding topics are evolving or that the corresponding constructs are immature. The implication of this finding is that the Taiwanese government should improve the systems that affect job security and promotion in the civil service. The term “planning and self-restraint” (B4A) refers to a personality trait associated with college students who are willing to be civil servants. Therefore, in addition to perfecting the civil service exam system, a civil service selection and appraisal system should be established to allow proactive, talented human resources who possess self-restraint to serve the people. Responsible government (B5A) and negative politics (B5B) both fall within political maneuvering (B5). The results pertaining to those indicate that the Taiwanese government should be more conscientious and responsible about allocating taxpayers’ money. Furthermore, the government should invest in developing civil servants’ public administration expertise and prioritize public opinion alongside social fairness and justice. We believe that implementing these measures will optimize subsequent modeling evaluation results. Finally, many studies have shown that PSM is correlated with the performance of staff at public organizations. Future studies should consider investigating the impacts of the (mis)fit between young citizens’ personality traits and public sector officials’ pursuit of the public interests (i.e., after entering the civil service). Moreover, numerous previous studies have shown that PSM is positively correlated with work satisfaction, work performance, and organizational commitment but negatively correlated with turnover intention and job burnout. Perry and Wise ( 1990 ) used the attraction-selection-attrition framework (Schneider, 1987) to support their argument that the higher the intensity of PSM (i.e., civil servants’ personal traits are fit for government officials’ pursuit of public interests and thus government sectors are more likely to successfully serve the people and society), the higher the retention rate of civil servants and the lower the likelihood that they will resign public office. Whether this argument is applicable to young Taiwanese citizens is worth investigating. We admit that high-intensity PSM does not necessarily produce positive organizational impacts and may, in fact, produce negative organizational consequences. In the case of a person–job (organization) misfit, a civil servant with high-intensity PSM may embody negative effects such as a Type II agent problem and reduced effort (Wu, 2012). If there is a high degree of fit between an individual’s personal goals and those of the organization that employs them, then a civil servant with high-intensity PSM may well overstep the reasonable scope of their authority to achieve organizational goals. This is referred to as a Type II agent problem. Contrarily, if civil servants (who were recruited from among recent college graduates) perceive a misfit between their personal goals and those of the organization, then those with high-intensity PSM may have low behavioral intentions such as low work satisfaction and low work engagement. Consequently, we must track and seek to verify the possible impact of the PSM of civil servants (who were recruited from among recent college graduates) on their turnover and job transfer intentions. We hope that subsequent research will further underpin this study. Declarations Ethics Approval Statemen t This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Academia Sinica, Taiwan (IRB No. AS-REC-2023-1106). All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participant Consent Statement All participants, including college students and their legal guardians (parents), provided informed consent prior to their participation in this study. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The study protocol, including procedures for obtaining consent, was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Academia Sinica, Taiwan (IRB No. AS-REC-2023-1106). No personally identifiable information was collected, and the need for written consent was waived in accordance with the committee's guidelines for low-risk social science research involving anonymized survey data. Author Contribution All authors contributed substantially to the development of this research. Dr. Ji-Jen Hwang led the conceptualization of the study, coordinated the project, and supervised data interpretation and manuscript writing. Dr. Wei-Hua Chen contributed to the study design, sourced the national survey data, and provided critical revisions to the theoretical framework and policy implications. Dr. Tzu-Chin Chou led the statistical modeling and analysis, including the LISREL and SmartPLS-based structural equation modeling. Dr. Szu Szu Ling supported the development of the data collection instruments, contributed to the data analysis strategy, and substantively revised multiple drafts of the manuscript.All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including ensuring the integrity and accuracy of its content. The contributions meet the authorship criteria outlined by Nature Portfolio and reflect a collaborative and interdisciplinary research effort. References Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly , 50 (3), 367–403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367 Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal , 100 (401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133 Annen, H., Goldammer, P., & Szvircsev Tresch, T. (2015). Longitudinal effects of OCB on cadre selection and pursuing a career as militia cadre in the Swiss armed forces. Military Psychology , 27 (1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000063 Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Stocks, E. L. (2011). Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 103–126). Psychology Press. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest. Georgetown University Press. Bozeman, B., & Su, X. H. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review , 75 (5), 700–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12248 Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 8 (3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024390 Brown, P. G. (1998). The legitimacy crisis and the new progressivism. Public Administration Review , 58 (4), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/977558 Chen, D. Y. (2023). Who wants to & becomes public servants? A survey research on public service motivation, innovative genius, and political skills (Taiwan Government Bureaucrats Survey, TGBS III) (Public Access Data) (E10279) [data file] . Available from the Survey Research Data Archive, Academia Sinica. 陳敦源 (2023)。誰想與誰能成為公務人員？公共服務動機、創新潛能、與政治手腕的調查研究(臺灣政府文官調查第三期，TGBS III) (公共版) (E10279)【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA -E10279-1 Chen, C.-A., Hsieh, C.-W., & Chen, D.-Y. (2014). Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration , 92 , 954–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12042 陳重安、許成委（2016）。公共服務動機：回顧，反思與未來方向。 公共行政學報，（ 51 ） ，69- 96。[Chen, C.-A., & Hsu, C.-W. (2016). Public service motivation: Review, reflection, and reorientation. Journal of Public Administration , (51), 69–96.] 蔣經國 (1978)。 勝利之路 。正中。[Chiang, C.-K. (1978). The road to victory . Cheng Chung Book Co., Ltd.] Chih (2023). The Impact of Public Service Motivation on the Innovation of Civil Servants: The Mediation Effect of Emotional Intelligence. Public Administration & Policy , (76), 71-99.] Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 7 (4), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024363 董祥開、柳嘉蕙（2020）。情緒智力對工作滿意度之影響：公共服務動機的中介效果與調節效果。文官制度， 12 （1），51-92。[Dong, H.-K., & Leou, C.-H. (2020). The impacts of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction: The mediation and moderation effects of public service motivation. Journal of Civil Service , 12 (1), 51–92.] Francois, P. (2000). Public service motivation as an argument for government provision. Journal of Public Economics , 78 (3), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00075-X Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8 th ed.). Cengage. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2024). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2e). Sage. 黃朝盟、李俊達（2015）。提升政府文官團隊的公共服務動機：理論發展的觀點。 人事月刊 ，（355），52-63。[Huang, C.-M., & Lee, C. (2015). Improving public service motivation among government civilian teams: A theoretical development perspective. Personnel Monthly , (355), 52–63.] 黃婉玲（2019）。為何選擇就讀軍警院校？公共服務動機的角色。 公共行政學報 ，（57），83-118。https://doi.org/10.30409/JPA.201909_(57).0003 [Huang, W.-L. (2019). Why choose to join the cadets? The role of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration , (57), 83–118.] Lee, C.-T. (2020). An Analysis Of Public Service Motivation: Strategies for Enhancing PSM in The Post-Pension Reform Era. Civil Service Quarterly , 12(2), 57–87. Lee, C.-P. (2018). Innate personality and acquired ability: Factors affecting innovation attitude and behavior of public servants. Journal of Public Administration, (54), 1-40.Lin, L.-C., & Chien, L.-H. (2023, December 3). Half Of University Graduates Earn Less Than NT$30,000: Scholars Lament Wasted Talent. China Times . https://www.chinatimes.com/ 江宗正，「公務人員考試不再熱門了嗎？影響報考人數的原因分析」，國家人力資源論壇，2022年6月24日，Kim, S. (2009). Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration , 39 (2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008317681 Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Cooper, B. (2018). How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. Public Administration Review , 78 (1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12839 考選部 (2024)。考選統計年報。https://wwwc.moex.gov.tw/main/content/wfrmContentLink4.aspx?menu_id=268&all=1 [Ministry of Examination (Ed.). (2024). Examination statistics of the Republic of China . Ministry of Examination.] Mussagulova, A., van der Wal, Z., & Chen, C. A. (2019). What is wrong with job security? Public Administration and Development , 39 (3), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1863 O’Leary, C. (2022). The public in public service motivation theory. In Public Service Motivation? Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447360810.ch003 O’Toole, K., Dennis, J. Kilpatrick, S., & Farmer, J. (2010). From passive welfare to community governance: Youth NGOs in Australia and Scotland. Children and Youth Services Review , 32 (3), 430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.016 Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 6 (1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303 Perry, J. L. (2014). The motivational bases of public service: Foundations for a third wave of research. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration , 36 (1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/10.1080/23276665.2014.892272 Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review , 50 (3), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/976618 Prebble, M. (2016). Has the study of public service motivation addressed the issues that motivated the study? The American Review of Public Administration , 46 (3), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014554651 陳敦源 (2023)。 誰想與誰能成為公務人員？公共服務動機、創新潛能、與政治手腕的調查研究 ( 臺灣政府文官調查第三期， TGBS III) ( 公共版 ) (E10279) 【原始數據】 。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA -E10279-1 Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation. Public Management Review , 9 (4), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701726697 Wilson, R. (2000). The role of government in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930050035612 Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Code Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis B31 I want a good pension. 4.88 1.10 -1.02 0.97 B32 I want job security. 5.34 0.94 -2.03 5.40 B33 I want promotion opportunities. 5.02 1.01 -0.94 0.69 B34 My salary should be at least as high as the compensation received by employees who have the same education level and experience that I do. 4.54 1.21 -0.80 0.35 B35 I want to make the best of my strong points. 5.10 1.01 -1.22 1.57 B36 My work goals are consistent with my personal values. 4.82 1.07 -0.90 0.71 B37 I want to serve my country. 3.86 1.27 -0.45 -0.09 B38 I value my parents’ opinions. 3.84 1.25 -0.36 -0.14 B39 I value my friends’ opinions. 3.15 1.20 -0.05 -0.43 B310 I care about the social perception of my job. 3.75 1.30 -0.35 -0.39 B41 I often get into trouble because I am unthoughtful. 2.78 1.36 0.49 -0.49 B42 Planning can create anxiety around the tasks to be completed. 4.72 1.09 -0.92 0.80 B43 I must practice self-restraint to avoid getting into trouble. 3.84 1.41 -0.23 -0.81 B44 I like to take risks. 3.84 1.31 -0.07 -0.59 B45 I seek new and exciting experiences. 4.09 1.24 -0.35 -0.35 B46 Life is too dull without a little danger. 3.55 1.39 -0.04 -0.67 B51* Most legislators speak mainly on the behalf of large consortia. 2.92 1.21 -0.33 -0.22 B52 The government spends most the taxpayers' money where it is needed and does not waste it. 2.89 1.21 0.03 -0.19 B53* Today, it is hard to get things done in government sectors without bribing a government official. 3.88 1.25 0.20 -0.23 B54 Most civil servants are competent. 3.60 1.05 -0.17 0.01 B55 Today’s government officials value the opinions of the people. 3.55 1.14 -0.14 -0.18 B56 Today’s government officials value social justice. 3.31 1.11 -0.21 -0.20 B61 I am deeply interested in participating in activities that contribute to improving public services. 3.80 1.14 -0.31 0.10 B62 I derive purpose and value from contributing to public service programs and public policies. 4.04 1.19 -0.43 0.01 B63 I respect those who drive societal change by proposing public service programs and submitting public policy suggestions. 4.62 1.12 -0.65 0.06 B64 Serving the public interests is more important than helping a series of individuals. 4.18 1.15 -0.41 0.00 B65 I want to know what people in society need, so that I can help them. 4.38 1.16 -0.68 0.36 B66 Everyone in society ought to enjoy good public services even if providing universal services is costly. 4.42 1.17 -0.58 0.03 B67 In the workplace, I will endeavor to protect the freedoms and rights of everyone in society. 4.79 1.02 -0.75 0.36 B68 Public service programs should not only be reality-oriented but also consider the welfare of the next generation. 5.08 0.96 -1.25 2.05 B69 I always feel sad when I see vulnerable people being harmed. 4.99 0.96 -0.90 0.79 B610 I often observe that people depend on each other. 4.91 0.99 -0.87 0.71 B611 Many social welfare and relief programs are indispensable. 5.02 0.90 -0.86 0.90 B612 Contributing to society is more meaningful to me than my career development. 4.03 1.11 -0.39 0.18 B613 Working for the public good is worthwhile even if it costs me a promotion opportunity. 4.08 1.17 -0.36 -0.02 B614 I would support a policy that benefits the people even if it hurts my personal interests. 3.77 1.15 -0.12 -0.20 B615 In the workplace, the greater self (i.e., the one that embraces public responsibility) supersedes the smaller self (i.e., the one that prioritizes personal interests). 4.06 1.05 -0.25 0.21 Note . * denotes an inverse question. Table 2 Factor Analysis Results Factor KMO Total explained variance (%) Generation factor Explained variance (%) Code Name Importance of public office (B3) 0.779 59.29 B38–B310 20.47 B3A Social perception B31–B34 19.90 B3B Security and promotion B35–B37 19.37 B3C Fitness Innovation potential (B4) 0.715 62.28 B41–B43 37.76 B4A Planning and self-restraint B44–B46 24.52 B4B Risk-taking Political maneuvering (B5) 0.721 62.51 B52, B54–B56 40.92 B5A Responsible government B51, B53 21.59 B5B Negative politics PSM (B6) 0.915 59.77 B61–B65 20.47 B6A Public interest B66–B610 19.90 B6B Compassion B611–B615 19.40 B6C Self-sacrifice Table 3 Reliability Analysis Factor Item (Quantity) Subscale Total scale Social perception (B3A) B38–B310 (3) 0.75 .89 (including inverse questions) .90 Security and promotion (B3B) B31–B34 (4) 0.64 Fitness (B3C) B35–B37 (3) 0.67 Planning and self-restraint (B4A) B41–B43 (3) 0.47 Risk-taking (B4B) B44–B46 (3) 0.83 Responsible government (B5A) B52, B54, B55, B56 (4) 0.79 Negative politics (B5B) B51–B53 (2) 0.44 Negative politics (including inverse questions) (B5B) B51r a –B53r (2) 0.44 Public interest (B6A) B61–B65 (5) 0.83 Compassion (B6B) B66–B610 (5) 0.76 Self-sacrifice (B6C) B611–B615 (5) 0.83 Note . The analysis was conducted in SPSS 22. a r denotes an inverse question. Table 4 Structural Equation Modeling Analysis Results Structure path Hypothesis Path coefficient t Conclusion Importance of public office (B3)→Innovation potential (B4) H 1 0.280 6.426 *** Acceptable Importance of public office (B3)→political maneuvering (B5) H 2 0.292 5.648 *** Acceptable Importance of public office (B3)→PSM (B6) H 3 0.351 8.280 *** Acceptable Innovation potential (B4)→PSM (B6) H 4 0.250 6.010 *** Acceptable Political maneuvering (B5)→PSM (B6) H 5 0.203 4.898 *** Acceptable Note . * p < 0.05 (significant correlation), ** p < 0.01 (strong correlation), *** p < 0.005 (very strong correlation; * t = 1.96, ** t = 2.58, *** t = 3.29) Table 5 Modeling Evaluation Results Second-order factor First-order factor Item λ Square Error VE CR Evaluation result Importance of public office (B3) Social perception (B3A) B38 0.85 0.71 0.29 0.66 0.86 Acceptable B39 0.84 0.70 0.30 B310 0.76 0.58 0.42 Security and promotion (B3B) B31 0.71 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.79 Marginally acceptable B32 0.75 0.56 0.44 B33 0.68 0.46 0.54 B34 0.63 0.39 0.61 Fitness (B3C) B35 0.78 0.61 0.39 0.60 0.82 Acceptable B36 0.78 0.61 0.39 B37 0.77 0.59 0.41 Innovation potential (B4) Planning and self-restraint (B4A) B41 0.51 0.26 0.74 0.48 0.73 Marginally acceptable B42 0.75 0.56 0.44 B43 0.80 0.64 0.36 Risk-taking (B4B) B44 0.88 0.78 0.22 0.75 0.90 Acceptable B45 0.88 0.78 0.22 B46 0.83 0.68 0.32 Political maneuvering (B5) Responsible government (B5A) B52 0.71 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.79 Marginally acceptable B54 0.72 0.52 0.48 B55 0.86 0.74 0.26 B56 0.83 0.69 0.31 Negative politics (B5B) B51r* 0.80 0.63 0.37 0.64 0.78 Acceptable B53r* 0.81 0.65 0.35 PSM (B6) Public interest (B6A) B61 0.81 0.66 0.34 0.60 0.88 Acceptable B62 0.83 0.70 0.30 B63 0.76 0.58 0.42 B64 0.66 0.44 0.56 B65 0.80 0.65 0.35 Compassion (B6B) B66 0.69 0.47 0.53 0.52 0.84 Acceptable B67 0.78 0.61 0.39 B68 0.75 0.57 0.43 B69 0.75 0.56 0.44 B610 0.61 0.37 0.63 Self-sacrifice (B6C) B611 0.59 0.35 0.65 0.60 0.88 Acceptable B612 0.82 0.67 0.33 B613 0.84 0.70 0.30 B614 0.80 0.64 0.36 B615 0.80 0.64 0.36 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 11 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 21 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 13 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7114125","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":485481162,"identity":"e73e85cb-ea09-4448-9696-6d03e57c1162","order_by":0,"name":"Wei-Hua Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central Police University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wei-Hua","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":485481164,"identity":"adad8254-6b05-4ed7-8415-1f5f865612e3","order_by":1,"name":"Tzu-Chin Chou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ming Chuan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tzu-Chin","middleName":"","lastName":"Chou","suffix":""},{"id":485481166,"identity":"f233a5da-796d-4a9f-b6e6-c9a2ff8b2a21","order_by":2,"name":"Ji-Jen Hwang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rabdan Academy","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ji-Jen","middleName":"","lastName":"Hwang","suffix":""},{"id":485481168,"identity":"ac505d1f-6152-4af7-9831-410eefc24b60","order_by":3,"name":"Szu Szu Ling","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Higher Colleges of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Szu","middleName":"Szu","lastName":"Ling","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-13 15:08:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114125/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114125/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87558243,"identity":"e2d7061b-3d6c-4839-bf20-95e7383d8af5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 07:50:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":298580,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural Equation Modeling Framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7114125/v1/5dc008bd210cf86091c366e4.png"},{"id":87558244,"identity":"9ca01e52-d611-404a-aad2-6610cb3b204e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 07:50:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":160070,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural Equation Modeling Results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. The results were obtained in SmartPLS. The parenthetical values are \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values (\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01,\u003csup\u003e ***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.005).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7114125/v1/fa24af57669538c5ac00a52b.png"},{"id":87560331,"identity":"faf8bcef-9a7c-46a2-81f6-38f5939fecd3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 08:14:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1389869,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7114125/v1/ad74c69c-866b-42b5-a939-e7974b4adba7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Theory to Policy: Examining Factors Shaping Taiwanese Students’ Intentions to Enter Civil Service Through PSM Modeling","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;All irresponsible phenomena are due to a strong sense of individualism and selfishness\u0026rdquo; (Chiang Ching-kuo, 1978). Both Chiang Ching-kuo and Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s current top leader have further encouraged young students with the remark \u0026ldquo;The times test the youth and the youth creates the times.\u0026rdquo; These quotes have remained relevant because an ambitious government relies on a galaxy of talented human resources, and young citizens constitute a potential talent pool for Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s civil service.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to answer two questions: What factors affect young citizens\u0026rsquo; willingness to hold public office? What factors motivate them to pursue civil service careers? From the perspective of the well-known public service motivation (PSM) theory, we delved into the correlation between Taiwanese college students\u0026rsquo; PSM intensity and their willingness (i.e., motivation) to hold public office. Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s current national exam system comprises a civil service exam and a specialized vocational and technical personnel exam. These exams are held 19 times per year. The civil service exam is the main channel through which government agencies recruit talented personnel. Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s general and advanced (i.e., Level 3) civil service exams are held yearly\u0026nbsp;in mid-July. Most candidates take the exams at that time. According to statistics released by the Ministry of Examination (2024), the number of candidates for Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s civil service exam has gradually decreased from over 283,000 in 2006 to approximately 239,000 by 2021. Obviously, the number of Taiwanese civil service candidates has shown a declining trend. This concerning trend raises the following question: What factors affect Taiwanese college students\u0026rsquo; PSM?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to statistics released\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;government of Taiwan\u0026nbsp;(R.O.C), 24.9% of Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s new college graduates in 2022 earned only a base salary (TWD 25,250). Their median salary was TWD 30,000, indicating that half of the new graduates received an initial salary of less than TWD 30,000. Furthermore, the median salary of new graduates with a degree in an\u0026nbsp;art discipline, such as catering and hospitality or life services, was lower at TWD 27,000 (Lin \u0026amp; Jian, 2023). It is generally believed that the volume of civil service candidates has been affected primarily by the size of the young and middle-aged population (i.e., aged 18\u0026ndash;35 years), the decline in the number of college students, and the changes that have been observed in the economic climate and in employment trends. In response to the impact of sub-replacement fertility, researchers conducted a cross-comparison of national exam candidates and new college graduates. The results showed a significant decline in the proportion of new college graduate candidates for Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s Level 3 and general civil service exam in the period 2012\u0026ndash;2021. Specifically, the figure remained in the range of 18%\u0026ndash;20% from 2012 to 2018 and decreased sharply to only 4%\u0026ndash;8% from 2019 onwards (Jiang, 2022). The Ministry of Examination has identified this trend as problematic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the three decades since Perry and Wise (1990) proposed the PSM concept, it has been among the hottest topics in public administration academia in Taiwan and abroad (Brewer \u0026amp; Selden, 1998). Three tides of PSM research have spawned related empirical studies and fueled theoretical development (Perry, 2014) in line with the high expectations of relevant business and academic circles. However, the resultant PSM-related research findings have played a very limited role in solving substantive problems. Critics have explained this by pointing to conceptual uncertainty and suboptimal measurement methods (Bozeman \u0026amp; Su, 2015; O\u0026rsquo;Leary, 2022; Prebble, 2016). For example, Prebble (2016) reviewed seminal PSM-related articles that were published in the past decades and identified the following three issues as the focuses of the research and the issues the researchers attempted to address: describing human nature in terms of public choice theory, unveiling the reason for the long-term sustainability of the spirit of public service, and uncovering a theoretical basis for incentivizing public servants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA review of PSM studies that were conducted in the past two decades has shown that the core concerns of PSM research have extended from measurement scales, dimensional measurement, and empirical testing (Crewson, 1997; Francois, 2000; Kim, 2009; Perry \u0026amp; Wise, 1990) to encompass the inference of causal correlations (Chen et al., 2014). On the verge of the third tide of PSM theory development, PSM researchers shifted their core concern to devising strategies to respond to the drivers of PSM. This shift led to a controversy regarding whether PSM derives from personality traits as trait theory posits or from psychological states as state theory posits (Perry, 2014). Mussagulova et al. (2019) incorporated these views of PSM in their examination of the impact of Taiwanese civil service pension reform on PSM. Li (2020) distinguished between in-service civil servants and members of the general public who showed a willingness to hold public office; that scholar analyzed the latter and reported results that have provided insights into the types of people who are willing to hold public office and the factors that motivate potential candidates to pursue civil service careers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf PSM is stimulated by a certain personality trait, it should remain stable and consistent, whereas if it is stimulated by a particular state, then the intensity of people\u0026rsquo;s PSM can be expected to vary with both time and external environmental stimuli. State theory has provided the basis for recent studies on the impact of government reforms\u0026nbsp;(e.g., pension reform) on PSM (Lee, 2020, p. 59). Although money or other external rewards are not the primary drivers of PSM (Huang \u0026amp; Li, 2015), it must be noted that, from the perspective of comparative public administration, the retirement pensions and salary levels of civil servants in Taiwan are significantly lower than those of their counterparts in adjacent countries. This discrepancy makes it difficult for the civil service to recruit qualified talents.\u0026nbsp;For various reasons (e.g., ongoing sluggish employment growth and parliament\u0026rsquo;s recent successive retirement pension reform), society has gradually come to believe that the salaries, welfare, and social security of military, governmental, and educational staff have been reduced remarkably. This widespread notion has led to the formation of popular opinions such as the \u0026ldquo;Iron rice bowl is rusty\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Civil servants have fallen from the altar\u0026rdquo;. These opinions have, in turn, not only impacted the morale of the current civil service but have also made young students unwilling to become civil servants that is, negative public sentiment regarding the civil service has affected whether young people choose to hold public office. Consequently, Brown (1998) has indicated that Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s civil service system may proceed toward a legitimacy crisis (Chen, 2023) and may concurrently\u0026nbsp;face a brain drain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost existing Taiwanese PSM studies have investigated the measurement and influence of PSM. Specifically, measurement-oriented PSM studies have attempted to identify the antecedent variables of PSM, and influence-oriented PSM studies have examined the influence of PSM on individual behavior, professional competence, and organizational performance. Recently, scholars have reviewed the recent findings and bottlenecks of PSM research (Chen \u0026amp; Hsu, 2016). Few studies have explored the explanatory factors underlying well-educated young college students\u0026rsquo; willingness to hold public office. Furthermore, even empirical studies on the influencing factors of PSM, which are a subset of the larger body of research that has been conducted on different social groups\u0026rsquo; willingness to hold public office (such studies entail measuring the antecedent variables of PSM), have drawn inconsistent conclusions that have perpetuated the confusion surrounding this topic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study targeted members of the general public who are willing to hold public office\u0026ndash;\u0026ndash;specifically, college students\u0026ndash;\u0026ndash;and examined the possible influencing factors of their willingness to pursue civil service careers. In-service civil servants were excluded. Regarding the research design, we statistically analyzed the survey results of the general public (i.e., persons eligible for Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s civil service exam), which we obtained from a sample of the 2023 Taiwan Government Bureaucrat Survey (TGBS; Chen et al., 2023). We identified the influencing factors of college students\u0026apos; willingness to hold public office and constructed corresponding linear structural relations (LISREL) models. We then conducted first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) followed by structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to test the relationships between the influencing factors and construct a causal model. Consequently, the findings of this study reveal, to some extent, Taiwanese college students\u0026rsquo; major motivations to hold public office. The findings, based on innovative modeling, have both theoretical and policy implications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Basis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe drivers of PSM can be broadly categorized into individual and external factors. Individual factors include demographic variables (e.g., education level, family background, gender, and age), income incentives, the socialization process, and intrinsic motivators (e.g., self-fulfillment, commitment to public welfare, and values; Perry \u0026amp; Wise, 1990). College students are a well-educated social group; therefore, their affective factors (e.g., interest in policy and institutional participation, organizational commitment, compassion, self-sacrifice, and innovation ability) may affect the intensity of their PSM (Ciou, 2023; Li, 2018). College students\u0026rsquo; organizational environment and external reference groups may also affect the intensity of their PSM. For example, most college courses are designed to create a pro-publicness environment in which the formation of PSM is intended to ensure that students\u0026rsquo; personal development is aligned with the goals of higher education; this is in keeping with the fact that governmental financial support for higher education aims mainly to promote the cultivation of national talents in addition to ensuring education equality (Li et al., 2019; Wilson, 2000). The above discussion has demonstrated the important role of personal and institutional factors in stimulating college students\u0026rsquo; PSM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWho Has PSM?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom an individual perspective, PSM refers to individuals\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation to engage in behaviors that are beneficial to the public interest. Conceptually, a public interest-oriented behavioral pattern may be due to four motivations: egoism, collectivism, altruism, and principlism (Batson et al., 2011). The differences among them lie in the goal of each motivational factor, particularly the presence of non-egoistical motivation, which falls within the scope of motivational psychology. Specifically, the goal of egoists is to seek self-interest whereas the behavioral objective of collectivists is to improve the welfare of the group to which they belong to. Altruists, on the other hand, devise strategies to increase the welfare of one or more other members, and principlists adhere to one or more ethical principles. Obviously, the latter three motivations cannot be categorized as egoism; they fall under the altruistic motivation for public service. All four motivational factors are largely useful for observing the intensity of PSM and thus for empirically examining the pursuit of public interest more extensively and accurately. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the four motivations from the perspective of motivational psychology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEgoism\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIn the egoism-motivated behavioral pattern, individuals participate in public service to receive personal rewards such as social status, reputational gains, and promotion opportunities. Egoism is a common PSM, especially among young and inexperienced civil servants (Perry \u0026amp; Wise, 1990). This fact underscores the importance of introducing utilitarian incentives to public service. However, excessive egoistic motivation may lead to economic individualism (wherein civil servants pursue their personal interests over the public interest) and may also promote market-based values among civil servants at the expense of common interests (Bozeman, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, egoistic motivation may manifest in psychological contracts, a phenomenon that falls within the category of motivational psychology. A psychological contract is a type of implicit contract that stipulates mutual expectations and obligations between employees (i.e., civil servants) and employers (i.e., governments; Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Psychological contracts are in line with two fundamental principles: reciprocity (i.e., employees expect to be compensated fairly and rewarded for their efforts) and trust (i.e., employees believe that their employers will fulfil their promises and commitments). Psychological contracts may face various challenges such as misunderstandings or misconceptions between employees and employers regarding their mutual expectations. They may also be disrupted by contractual breaches (i.e., when either party fails to fulfill his or her promises or obligations) and by the alteration of the expected conditions pertaining to material incentives owing to changes in external circumstances (e.g., economic downturns or technological changes). If employers break their original promises to employees in the process of organizational change, the employees will be dissatisfied with the breach of the psychological contract as evidenced by the ongoing civil servant pension reforms that governments worldwide have undertaken. Mussagulova et al. (2019) conceptualized pension reform as a breach of the psychological contract between governments and civil servants. Those scholars investigated whether pension reform causes civil servants to regret their career choices. The results showed that PSM, as a mediating variable, intensifies the impacts of psychological contract breach and civil servants\u0026rsquo; negative perceptions of pension reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCollectivism\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCollectivistic motivation refers to individuals\u0026rsquo; loyalty to their groups or organizations. It entails their participation in public service for the purpose of improving the overall welfare of those groups. From ancient Greece and Rome to the Middle Ages to modern times, this has been a core topic of political and philosophical works (O\u0026rsquo;Toole et al., 2010). Studies have shown that collectivism plays an important role in public service provision. In a team-oriented environment in particular, collectivism is critical to achieving good organizational performance; it is also beneficial to fostering teamwork and collaboration and commitment to the organization. Moreover, collectivism is closely related to the perceived value of public interests; when individuals perceive the interests of political entities as taking precedence over the beliefs, values, and attitudes of individuals and organizations, the motivation of individual behaviors will be voluntarily subordinated to the collective interest (Vandenabeele, 2007). Therefore, Bozeman (2007, p. 86) defined public interests to conceptualize, explain, and sometimes specify collective interests. Common interests, public values, and public interests have garnered much social attention and have also become a core concern of political debate. Admittedly, public interests cover different levels in both civil society and governments; examples are voluntary services, civic engagement, and public responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAltruism\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAltruistic motivation is based on selfless care and compassion for others. People who are altruistically motivated to enter public service are committed to helping others and to improving society. Altruism is a strong driver of PSM, especially with respect to altruistic occupations in, for example, social work, education, and health care (Andreoni, 1990). The motivational psychology perspective views PSM as rooted in empathy and in a willingness to sacrifice some of one\u0026rsquo;s personal interests for the public interests. This type of altruistic PSM is mutually compatible with concepts such as pro-socialism and intrinsic motivation, but it is also prone to be connotatively overlapped and confounded with them (Bozeman \u0026amp; Su, 2015; Huang, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrinciplism\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePrinciplism-based motivation is stimulated by strong moral beliefs and values. Principlists are even willing to self-sacrifice to fulfil collective interests. They view public service as a moral obligation, and they hold public office to promote justice, transparency, integrity, and accountability. To some extent, principlism falls under personality trait theory, which posits that PSM is an inherent and relatively stable individual personality trait. Holders of public office tend to pursue social justice while showing altruism and caring for others. Trait theory contends that individuals with these personality traits are attracted to service-oriented public offices and that they regard engaging in public service as a means of self-fulfillment. Principlism is an important element of PSM, particularly among high-ranking civil servants, because it can ensure that public servants abide by ethical norms and engage in fair decision-making (Brewer et al., 2000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above, we integrated motivational psychology (i.e., intrinsic motivation) and external institutional factors (i.e., utilitarian motivation) into an operable theoretical framework for exploring the connotations and classifications of PSM. Regarding intrinsic motivations, we suggest that PSM drivers should include at least a commitment to the public interest alongside empathy\u0026nbsp;(i.e., compassion) and self-sacrifice (Kim et al., 2013). Equally important are utilitarian motivations formed by\u0026nbsp;institutional factors in the external system environment. We propose the following hypotheses on the relevant dimensions and factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH1: The intensity of college students\u0026rsquo; PSM is positively correlated with their willingness to apply for public office (as an indicator of their commitment to the public interest).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH2: The intensity of college students\u0026rsquo; PSM is positively correlated with their pursuit of a high social status, job security and promotion, and organizational belongingness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH3: The intensity of college students\u0026rsquo; PSM is affected by their discipline of study, the courses they take, and the extracurricular activities in which they participate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCollege Students\u0026rsquo; Innovation Potential and National (Political) Identity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerry and Wise\u0026rsquo;s (1990) pioneering study on PSM primarily investigated how the intensity and connotations of PSM are affected by six dimensions: civil servants\u0026rsquo; attraction to public policy-making (APM), commitment to the public interest (CPI), embodiment of social justice, demonstration of civic responsibility, embodiment of compassion, and demonstration of\u0026nbsp;self-sacrifice. Perry\u0026rsquo;s (1996) factor analysis-based continuous study further identified four subdimensions of the influencing factors of PSM: the derivation of a sense of accomplishment from participation in policy-making, \u0026nbsp;a commitment to the public interest, compassion for external things, and self-sacrifice. Perry (1996) developed corresponding test scales that exerted a far-reaching influence on PSM research in the public administration field over the subsequent two decades.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a complement to the motivational psychology perspective espoused above, Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s academic community recently developed locally applicable PSM dimensions and scales (Huang, 2019; Sun \u0026amp; Syu, 2014). This advancement has shifted the research perspective to public employees\u0026rsquo; emotional intelligence and innovation abilities (Ciou, 2023; Dong \u0026amp; Liou, 2020). Taiwanese public administration researchers have successively conducted exploratory studies on the correlations between the connotations of PSM and civil servants\u0026rsquo; innovation abilities (Li, 2018). Among them, Ciou (2023) presented evidence of definite correlations between the connotations of PSM and employees\u0026rsquo; innovation abilities and confirmed the mediating role of emotional intelligence in those relationships. Other studies have shown that PSM, which involves rational, normative, and affective factors, can influence individuals\u0026rsquo; behavior and performance in the public sector. Civil servants with high-intensity PSM are intrinsically motivated by altruism and pro-sociality and are thus more likely to exhibit innovative attitudes and behaviors (Amabile et al., 2005). Moreover, PSM is known to enhance emotional intelligence; it has also been proven to be critical for effective decision-making and problem-solving and for good job performance, all of which are important components of innovation. Indeed, the intrinsic motivation (particularly affective motivation) included in PSM may push civil servants to participate in decision-making participation to derive a sense of accomplishment. It may also lead to the improvement of their work environment and their organizational performance, thus potentially contributing to innovative practice. Civil servants\u0026rsquo; PSM could therefore catalyze innovative solutions that enhance creativity, problem-solving skills, and responses to societal challenges (Miao et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough numerous studies on PSM and civil servants\u0026rsquo; innovation abilities have been conducted in Taiwan and abroad, few have examined whether potential candidates\u0026rsquo; willingness to hold public office is affected by their personality traits (e.g., innovation potential and emotional intelligence) and their attitude towards and enthusiasm for policy participation. Studies on the connotations of PSM and young people\u0026rsquo;s willingness to hold public office are even fewer. These research gaps necessitated our attempt to clarify related concepts in this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the public interests that college students perceive may differ from the traditional definition of public interests. Characterized by publicity and reasonableness, public interests are traditionally defined as benefits that are derived from public affairs and equally shared among everyone. However, college students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of public interests may emphasize individuals\u0026rsquo; awareness of and participation in public interests, the links between public and personal interests, and the importance of values such as social fairness and justice. Therefore, college students\u0026rsquo; definition of public interests may contain more personal values and social consciousness than the conventional definition. Chen and Hsu (2016) perused previous PSM studies and compiled at least 23 definitions of public interests. Owing to college students\u0026rsquo; unconventional perception of public interests, the connotations of PSM in their minds also differ accordingly from the traditionally held connotations. Amidst the current relations across the Taiwan strait, Taiwanese youth understand public interests differently; this may involve different standpoints on national reunification (or national identity and political ideology). Such a situation complicates substantive studies on college students\u0026rsquo; PSM. However, we can reasonably infer that young college students who possess a strong national identity desire to enter the civil service because it is responsible for national policy implementation; they may even have a sense of belonging to it, and consequently, they have high-intensity PSM (Annen et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above literature review, this study further investigated college students as potential candidates for public office. We sought to determine whether there exists a correlation between their PSM intensity and their willingness to hold public office. Next, we refer to the main dimensions and subdimensions of PSM and discuss the influencing factors of college students\u0026rsquo; willingness to hold public office. We then describe how we inputted these factors into a statistical methodology\u0026nbsp;to construct prediction models. We propose the following related hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH4: The intensity of college students\u0026rsquo; PSM is affected by their parents\u0026rsquo; education level, household income, and political participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH5: The intensity of college students\u0026rsquo; PSM is affected by their degree of governmental trust, their sense of social participation, and their self-value identification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH6: Public office internship experience increases the intensity of college students\u0026rsquo; PSM.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study Design and Methodology","content":"\u003ch2\u003eStudy Sample and Questionnaire Design\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe obtained our research sample from the TGBS Phase III data (public version) maintained by Academia Sinica\u0026rsquo;s Survey Research Data Archive (SRDA). The data were released on October 6, 2023.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo facilitate further data collection in this study, we conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews during a home phone opinion poll of Taiwanese college student respondents (including students enrolled at 5- and 2-year junior colleges and students with an associate\u0026rsquo;s or bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree) who had expressed an intent to apply for public office and their parents. To compensate for the lack of respondent data, our sampling method entailed randomly selecting home phone numbers, randomly selecting the last two phone numbers, and targeting those respondents and their parents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also distributed a pair of questionnaires to college students and their parents, respectively. In the questionnaire design stage, we held an expert seminar to determine the survey content. The survey items covered (1) college students\u0026rsquo; willingness to apply for public office, the types of civil service positions in which they have shown an interest, their reasons for applying for those jobs, and their degree of understanding of public office; and (2) college students\u0026rsquo; parents\u0026rsquo; willingness to encourage their children to apply for public office, their reasons for promoting a civil service career, and their degree of understanding of public office. According to the SRDA, the original sample size was 1,526. In our study, after we excluded data with missing values and questionnaire responses with missing information, we had 666 valid questionnaires. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis, factor analyses, reliability analysis, and modeling analysis successively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eModel Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings of our literature review, we further constructed four second-order factors, namely importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6), as illustrated in Figure 1. Further factorial classifications are as follows.\u0026nbsp;Importance of public office (B3) comprises three first-order factors: social perception (B3A), security and promotion (B3B), and fitness (B3C). Innovation potential (B4) comprises two first-order factors: planning and self-restraint (B4A) and risk-taking (B4B). Political maneuvering (B5) comprises two first-order factors: responsible government (B5A) and negative politics (B5B). PSM (B6) comprises three first-order factors: public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Fig 1 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Processing and Modeling Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted statistical processing in two steps. First, we analyzed the respondents\u0026rsquo; background data, descriptive statistics, and related\u0026nbsp;factors with reference to the SPSS data files in the SRDA. Second, we performed modeling analysis using the modeling software SmartPLS 4. During the modeling process, construct reliability (\u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e) complied with the following four rules (Hair et al., 2019). First, the standard load \u003cem\u003e\u0026lambda;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eshould be at least 0.5, and its ideal value should be at least 0.7. 2. Second, to confirm convergent validity, the variance extracted (\u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e) should be at least 0.5.3. Third, to confirm discriminant validity, the \u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e of any two factors should be greater than the square of their correlation coefficient. Fourth, to confirm suitability for convergence or internal consistency, the \u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e should be at least 0.7. The \u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e are calculated as follows.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://myfiles.space/user_files/58895_8739fc6c57c1c19a/58895_custom_files/img1753429070.png\" width=\"622\" height=\"175\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the above equations, \u003cem\u003e\u0026lambda;\u003c/em\u003e denotes the standard factor loading. \u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e is equal to the sum of squares of all standard factor loading values (i.e., the squared multiple correlation coefficient) divided by the number of items, and a \u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e value of at least 0.5 implies suitability for convergence. \u003cem\u003e\u0026delta;\u003c/em\u003e in the \u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e denotes the error of a construct, and a \u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e value of at least 0.7 implies high reliability. In this study, we calculated the \u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e using self-designed Microsoft Excel equations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003eRespondent Profile\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final valid research sample comprised 666 college students. Of those, 316 (47.4%) and 350 (52.6%) were males and females, respectively. Of all the respondents, 241 (36.2%) and 425 (63.8%) were enrolled in public and private colleges, respectively. Moreover, 347 (52.1%), 155 (23.3%), and 150 (22.5%) attended colleges in northern, central, and southern Taiwan, respectively. Seven (1.1%) attended colleges in eastern Taiwan, and the same proportion of the sample attended off-island colleges. Regarding the respondents\u0026rsquo; years of study, 161 (24.2%) were in their freshman year, 168 were (25.2%) in their sophomore year, 157 (23.6%) were in their junior year, 137 (20.6%) were in their senior year, 5 (0.8%) were in their Grade 5 year, and one (0.2%) was in their Grade 6 year. Thirty-seven respondents (5.6%) exhibited missing values or had omitted answers. Regarding the respondents\u0026rsquo; disciplines of study, 136 (20.4%) were in the humanities, 247 (37.1%) were in the social sciences, and 279 (41.9%) were in science and technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe respondents could have chosen to work in government sectors, private firms, or non-profit organizations. Persons aspiring to employment in a government sector must take the national civil service exam. Therefore, we collected ratings indicating each respondent\u0026rsquo;s degree of confidence in their ability to pass the civil service exam. The confidence scores were in the range of 0\u0026ndash;9 and were distributed as follows: 13 respondents (2%) had a confidence score of 0, 4 (0.6%) had a score of 1, 4 (0.6%) had a score of 2, 40 (6%) had a score of 3, 49 (7.4%) had a score of 4, 165 (24.8%) had a score of 5, 134 (20.1%) had a score of 6, 170 (25.5%) had a score of 7, 57 (8.6%) had a score of 8, 29 (4.4%) had a score of 9, and 1 (0.2%) did not provide an answer. We noted that approximately 70% of the valid sample had a confidence score in the range of 5\u0026ndash;7. Regarding the respondents\u0026rsquo; future employment plans, they all reported considering government sectors, private firms, or non-profit organizations. Their specific job preferences were distributed as follows: 257 (38.6%) preferred a government sector, 355 (53.3%) preferred a private firm, and 54 (8.1%) preferred a non-profit organization (e.g., a foundation, research institute, or school).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePer academic recommendations, descriptive statistics for modeling should include, in addition to the mean value (M) and the standard deviation (SD), skewness and kurtosis to confirm a normal distribution of items (Hair et al., 2019). We used the codes available in the SRDA (i.e., B3, B4, B5, and B6 for the four major factors) and removed the original baselines of the items during descriptive statistical analysis (e.g., B3_1 was converted to B31). The mean scores we obtained from the respondents\u0026rsquo; 6-point Likert scale ratings of all 37 items in this study (including the B51r and B53r inverse questions) were distributed within the range of 2.78\u0026ndash;5.34. The mean values for the four factors were distributed in the following ranges: 3.15\u0026ndash;5.34 for B3 (importance; the factor was named subsequently), 2.78\u0026ndash;4.72 for B4 (identification), 2.92\u0026ndash;3.88 for B5 (level of agreement, including the B51r and B53r inverse questions), and 3.77\u0026ndash;5.08 for B6 (level of agreement). The skewness and kurtosis values for all 37 items were in the range of -2.03\u0026ndash;0.49 and -0.81\u0026ndash;5.4, respectively. We applied the academic standard according to which an absolute skewness value of below 3 and a kurtosis value of below 7 indicate a normal distribution (Hair et al., 2024; Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 1 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFactor Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe factors were not clearly named in the SRDA. To begin determining names, we conducted four separate factor analyses on the ten items under the original B3 (B3_1\u0026ndash;B3_10), the six items under the original B4 (B4_1\u0026ndash;B4_6), the six items under the original B5 (B5_1\u0026ndash;B5_6), and the 15 items under the original B6 (B6_1\u0026ndash;B6_15). These factor analyses entailed the use of orthogonal (principal component plus maximum variance) and oblique (principal axis factor plus Promax) methods. Because the orthogonal results and explained variance for the original B3, B4, B5, and B6 were all superior to their oblique results, we used the orthogonal results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 presents the factor analysis results. We carefully checked the original meanings of the English items in the theoretical literature and repeatedly confirmed the content of the SRDA research report; only then did we name the four second-order factors and the ten first-order factors as follows: (1) importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6); and (2) social perception (B3A), security and promotion (B3B), fitness (B3C), planning and self-restraint (B4A), risk-taking (B4B), responsible government (B5A), negative politics (B5B), public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 2 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe calculated the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (\u003cem\u003eKMO\u003c/em\u003e) measure of sampling adequacy prior to conducting the factor analyses. If the \u003cem\u003eKMO\u003c/em\u003e value is below 0.5, the academic standard states that conducting factor analysis is inappropriate. However, the larger the \u003cem\u003eKMO\u003c/em\u003e value, the lower the coefficient of partial correlation between variables and the more effective the extraction of common factors in factor analyses. In this study, the \u003cem\u003eKMO\u003c/em\u003e value of PSM (B6) was above 0.9, indicating high suitability for factor analysis. Contrastingly, the \u003cem\u003eKMO\u003c/em\u003e values of the importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), and political maneuvering (B5) were within the range of 0.715\u0026ndash;0.779, indicating moderate suitability for factor analysis. Furthermore, the explained variances of the four second-order factors were in the range of 59.29%\u0026ndash;62.51%, indicating good factor analysis results. Therefore, the factor analysis results we obtained in this study are good overall and are worthy of use in subsequent studies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eReliability Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure high reliability and research continuity, we used the manual subscales and total scale in SPSS to confirm Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e. We opted for this method instead of computing Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e in SmartPLS mainly because of the suspected data embellishment issue associated with simulation software such as SmartPLS. We referenced the factor analysis results and selected ten factors for reliability analysis. The factors covered all 37 items (including the two inverse questions). The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e values for the subscales of the ten factors (including the two inverse questions) were in the range of 0.44\u0026ndash;0.83, indicating medium to high reliability. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; value for the total scale was 0.89, indicating high reliability. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e values for the four factors were below 0.7, which is the threshold for high reliability. The negative politics factor (B5B) involved two inverse questions that were answered during the reliability analysis; however, the subscales indicated only moderate reliability (0.44).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe academic standard recommends the removal of the two inverse questions with extremely small Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e values, but studies have demonstrated the need to retain them. Regarding the item that reads \u0026ldquo;Most legislators speak mainly on the behalf of large consortia\u0026rdquo; (B51), the mean Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e value of the college student respondents who showed a willingness to hold public office was 4.08 in the absence of the inverse question and 2.92 in the presence of the inverse question. These results revealed a severe issue because they indicated that 68% (converted from the mean value of 4.08) of the respondents agreed with the above statement. Regarding the item that reads \u0026ldquo;Today, it is hard to get things done in government sectors without giving officials red packets\u0026rdquo; (B53), the mean Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e value was 3.12 in the absence of the inverse question and 3.88 in the presence of the inverse question. The increase in the mean Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e value in the presence of the inverse question suggests a higher level of agreement with the practice of refraining from bribing legislators. Opposing bribery is normal, but the fact that nearly 52% (converted from the mean value of 3.12) of the college student respondents agreed to monetarily incentivizing government officials during routine government business is concerning. Therefore, although the academic standard recommends deleting the two inverse questions, they were very important in practice in this study because they allowed us to conduct a tracking survey of positive politics. We will retain the inverse questions in future research to further elucidate the improvement trajectory of positive politics and preserve the quality of the scales. The presence of low reliability items adversely affects modeling quality, but we adopted LISREL modeling in this study, marking the first time the methodology has been used in Taiwan. For this reason, our study may be a useful reference for subsequent modeling or relevant research (Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 3 about here]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eModeling Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we initially used the LISREL approach and conducted first- and second-order CFA accordingly. However, the reliability analysis results showed that the inverse questions under the negative politics factor (B5B) adversely affected the modeling quality. Consequently, we adopted LISREL modeling, marking the first use of the methodology in Taiwan. We then used SmartPLS to conduct SEM analysis with a focus on the causality between the factors and the testing of the hypotheses regarding the relationships between the factors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe four factors of importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6) are second-order factors in the model diagram. Each comprises two or three first-order factors. Specifically, the importance of public office (B3) comprises three first-order factors, namely social perception (B3A), security and promotion (B3B), and fitness (B3C). Innovation potential (B4) comprises two first-order factors, namely planning and self-restraint (B4A) and risk-taking (B4B). Political maneuvering (B5) comprises two first-order factors, namely responsible government (B5A) and negative politics (B5B). Note that two inverse questions were introduced to the negative politics factor (B5B); otherwise, the SmartPLS-based analysis results contained symbols indicating failure mode coefficients. PSM (B6) comprises three first-order factors, namely public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C). Regarding causality, the importance of public office (B3), innovation potential (B4), and political maneuvering (B5) all served as causes in regression analyses; they are therefore independent or exogeneous variables. Innovation potential (B4), political maneuvering (B5), and PSM (B6) were arrowed; that is, they occupied the position of effects in the causality relationships. Therefore, they are dependent variables or, to use the academic term, endogenous variables. However, PSM (B6) emerged as the only genuine endogenous variable (i.e., it pointed at no factor) whereas innovation potential (B4) and political maneuvering (B5) are both endogenous and exogenous variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs Figure 2 illustrates, we found very strong or significantly positive correlations among the four second-order factors (i.e., B3, B4, B5, and B6). These results suggest that we have constructed a pioneering model that has referential reference significance to Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s civil service system. Unfortunately, the only nonsignificant correlation coefficient was between political maneuvering (B5) and negative politics (B5B), although the value (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.054) was very close to the threshold value (0.05). This section has been largely diagrammatical. We will discuss the causality between the factors next.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Fig 2 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eHypothesis Testing\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 displays the hypothesis test results we obtained through SmartPLS-based SEM analysis. Table 4 shows that all five hypotheses were acceptable and that all exhibited very strong or significantly positive correlations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 4 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eModeling Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 presents the modeling evaluation results, which showed marginal acceptability of security and promotion (B3B), planning and self-restraint (B4A), and responsible government (B5A). This is mainly because the \u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e values of these three factors were all 0.48 and the \u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e values of the same factors were all above 0.7. The modeling evaluation results for the seven other factors all led to a conclusion of acceptability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 5 about here]\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe proposed the following five hypothesis paths: (H1) importance of public office (B3) \u0026rarr; innovation potential (B4), (H2) importance of public office (B3) \u0026rarr; political maneuvering (B5), (H3) importance of public office (B3) \u0026rarr; PSM (B6), (H4) innovation potential (B4) \u0026rarr; PSM (B6), and (H5) political maneuvering (B5) \u0026rarr; PSM (B6). The hypothesis test results confirmed very strong or significantly positive correlations for all paths. Specifically, the importance of public office showed a positive correlation with innovation potential, political maneuvering, and PSM. However, the influence of negative politics on college students must be addressed. When governmental and civil organizations cultivate positive politics, they aim to provide healthy and relevant topics. This is also an important part of civil service training and education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesis test results also confirmed very strong or significantly positive correlations between innovation potential (B4) and PSM (B6) and between political maneuvering (B5) and PSM (B6). Additionally, innovation potential and political maneuvering, which were identified as both exogenous and endogenous variables, showed positive correlations with PSM, a genuine endogenous variable. This study proved the importance of these factors to the screening, selection, training, and education of civil servants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur research contributes to the discourse populated by previous related studies. Perry (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) obtained CFA results that supported the classification of PSM into four factors, namely APM, CPI, compassion, and self-sacrifice. That scholar developed a multidimensional PSM scale encompassing these factors. In this study, we carefully perused the literature and the names of the relevant items in English. From this exercise, we derived three factors: public interest (B6A), compassion (B6B), and self-sacrifice (B6C). These factors represent a great research achievement. This study has properly named the factors through factor analysis involving numerous previous studies. Moreover, our findings have reconfirmed the applicability of Perry\u0026rsquo;s classic theory in the Taiwanese context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, we obtained modeling evaluation results that indicated the marginal acceptability of the three factors of security and promotion (B3B), planning and self-restraint (B4A), and responsible government (B5A; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). These results suggest that the corresponding topics are evolving or that the corresponding constructs are immature. The implication of this finding is that the Taiwanese government should improve the systems that affect job security and promotion in the civil service. The term \u0026ldquo;planning and self-restraint\u0026rdquo; (B4A) refers to a personality trait associated with college students who are willing to be civil servants. Therefore, in addition to perfecting the civil service exam system, a civil service selection and appraisal system should be established to allow proactive, talented human resources who possess self-restraint to serve the people. Responsible government (B5A) and negative politics (B5B) both fall within political maneuvering (B5). The results pertaining to those indicate that the Taiwanese government should be more conscientious and responsible about allocating taxpayers\u0026rsquo; money. Furthermore, the government should invest in developing civil servants\u0026rsquo; public administration expertise and prioritize public opinion alongside social fairness and justice. We believe that implementing these measures will optimize subsequent modeling evaluation results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, many studies have shown that PSM is correlated with the performance of staff at public organizations. Future studies should consider investigating the impacts of the (mis)fit between young citizens\u0026rsquo; personality traits and public sector officials\u0026rsquo; pursuit of the public interests (i.e., after entering the civil service). Moreover, numerous previous studies have shown that PSM is positively correlated with work satisfaction, work performance, and organizational commitment but negatively correlated with turnover intention and job burnout. Perry and Wise (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) used the attraction-selection-attrition framework (Schneider, 1987) to support their argument that the higher the intensity of PSM (i.e., civil servants\u0026rsquo; personal traits are fit for government officials\u0026rsquo; pursuit of public interests and thus government sectors are more likely to successfully serve the people and society), the higher the retention rate of civil servants and the lower the likelihood that they will resign public office. Whether this argument is applicable to young Taiwanese citizens is worth investigating.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe admit that high-intensity PSM does not necessarily produce positive organizational impacts and may, in fact, produce negative organizational consequences. In the case of a person\u0026ndash;job (organization) misfit, a civil servant with high-intensity PSM may embody negative effects such as a Type II agent problem and reduced effort (Wu, 2012). If there is a high degree of fit between an individual\u0026rsquo;s personal goals and those of the organization that employs them, then a civil servant with high-intensity PSM may well overstep the reasonable scope of their authority to achieve organizational goals. This is referred to as a Type II agent problem. Contrarily, if civil servants (who were recruited from among recent college graduates) perceive a misfit between their personal goals and those of the organization, then those with high-intensity PSM may have low behavioral intentions such as low work satisfaction and low work engagement. Consequently, we must track and seek to verify the possible impact of the PSM of civil servants (who were recruited from among recent college graduates) on their turnover and job transfer intentions. We hope that subsequent research will further underpin this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval Statemen\u003c/strong\u003et This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Academia Sinica, Taiwan (IRB No. AS-REC-2023-1106). All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Consent Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll participants, including college students and their legal guardians (parents), provided informed consent prior to their participation in this study. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The study protocol, including procedures for obtaining consent, was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Academia Sinica, Taiwan (IRB No. AS-REC-2023-1106). No personally identifiable information was collected, and the need for written consent was waived in accordance with the committee\u0026apos;s guidelines for low-risk social science research involving anonymized survey data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed substantially to the development of this research. Dr. Ji-Jen Hwang led the conceptualization of the study, coordinated the project, and supervised data interpretation and manuscript writing. Dr. Wei-Hua Chen contributed to the study design, sourced the national survey data, and provided critical revisions to the theoretical framework and policy implications. Dr. Tzu-Chin Chou led the statistical modeling and analysis, including the LISREL and SmartPLS-based structural equation modeling. Dr. Szu Szu Ling supported the development of the data collection instruments, contributed to the data analysis strategy, and substantively revised multiple drafts of the manuscript.All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including ensuring the integrity and accuracy of its content. The contributions meet the authorship criteria outlined by Nature Portfolio and reflect a collaborative and interdisciplinary research effort.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., \u0026amp; Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 50\u003c/em\u003e(3), 367\u0026ndash;403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. \u003cem\u003eThe Economic Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 100\u003c/em\u003e(401), 464\u0026ndash;477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnen, H., Goldammer, P., \u0026amp; Szvircsev Tresch, T. (2015). Longitudinal effects of OCB on cadre selection and pursuing a career as militia cadre in the Swiss armed forces. \u003cem\u003eMilitary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000063\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBatson, C. D., Ahmad, N., \u0026amp; Stocks, E. L. (2011). Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In D. Dunning (Ed.),\u003cem\u003e Social motivation\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 103\u0026ndash;126). Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest. Georgetown University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBozeman, B., \u0026amp; Su, X. H. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 75\u003c/em\u003e(5), 700\u0026ndash;710. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12248\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrewer, G. A., \u0026amp; Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(3), 413\u0026ndash;439. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024390\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, P. G. (1998). The legitimacy crisis and the new progressivism. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(4), 290\u0026ndash;292. https://doi.org/10.2307/977558\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, D. Y. (2023). \u003cem\u003eWho wants to \u0026amp; becomes public servants? A survey research on public service motivation, innovative genius, and political skills (Taiwan Government Bureaucrats Survey, TGBS III) (Public Access Data) (E10279) [data file]\u003c/em\u003e. Available from the Survey Research Data Archive, Academia Sinica.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e陳敦源 (2023)。誰想與誰能成為公務人員？公共服務動機、創新潛能、與政治手腕的調查研究(臺灣政府文官調查第三期，TGBS III) (公共版) (E10279)【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA -E10279-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, C.-A., Hsieh, C.-W., \u0026amp; Chen, D.-Y. (2014). Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 92\u003c/em\u003e, 954\u0026ndash;973. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12042\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e陳重安、許成委（2016）。公共服務動機：回顧，反思與未來方向。\u003cstrong\u003e公共行政學報，（\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e51\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e）\u003c/strong\u003e，69- 96。[Chen, C.-A., \u0026amp; Hsu, C.-W. (2016). Public service motivation: Review, reflection, and reorientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e, (51), 69\u0026ndash;96.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e蔣經國 (1978)。\u003cstrong\u003e勝利之路\u003c/strong\u003e。正中。[Chiang, C.-K. (1978). \u003cem\u003eThe road to victory\u003c/em\u003e. Cheng Chung Book Co., Ltd.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChih (2023). The Impact of Public Service Motivation on the Innovation of Civil Servants: The Mediation Effect of Emotional Intelligence. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, (76), 71-99.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 499\u0026ndash;518. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024363\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e董祥開、柳嘉蕙（2020）。情緒智力對工作滿意度之影響：公共服務動機的中介效果與調節效果。文官制度，\u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e（1），51-92。[Dong, H.-K., \u0026amp; Leou, C.-H. (2020). The impacts of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction: The mediation and moderation effects of public service motivation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Civil Service\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51\u0026ndash;92.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrancois, P. (2000). Public service motivation as an argument for government provision.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Public Economics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 78\u003c/em\u003e(3), 275\u0026ndash;299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00075-X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., \u0026amp; Anderson, R. E. (2019). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis \u003c/em\u003e(8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). Cengage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Gudergan, S. P. (2024). \u003cem\u003eAdvanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)\u003c/em\u003e (2e). Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e黃朝盟、李俊達（2015）。提升政府文官團隊的公共服務動機：理論發展的觀點。\u003cstrong\u003e人事月刊\u003c/strong\u003e，（355），52-63。[Huang, C.-M., \u0026amp; Lee, C. (2015). Improving public service motivation among government civilian teams: A theoretical development perspective. \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Monthly\u003c/em\u003e, (355), 52\u0026ndash;63.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e黃婉玲（2019）。為何選擇就讀軍警院校？公共服務動機的角色。\u003cstrong\u003e公共行政學報\u003c/strong\u003e，（57），83-118。https://doi.org/10.30409/JPA.201909_(57).0003 [Huang, W.-L. (2019). Why choose to join the cadets? The role of public service motivation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e, (57), 83\u0026ndash;118.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, C.-T. (2020). An Analysis Of Public Service Motivation: Strategies for Enhancing PSM in The Post-Pension Reform Era. \u003cem\u003eCivil Service Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 12(2), 57\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, C.-P. (2018). Innate personality and acquired ability: Factors affecting innovation attitude and behavior of public servants. Journal of Public Administration, (54), 1-40.Lin, L.-C., \u0026amp; Chien, L.-H. (2023, December 3). Half Of University Graduates Earn Less Than NT$30,000: Scholars Lament Wasted Talent. \u003cem\u003eChina Times\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.chinatimes.com/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e江宗正，「公務人員考試不再熱門了嗎？影響報考人數的原因分析」，國家人力資源論壇，2022年6月24日，\u0026lt; https://www.exam.gov.tw/NHRF/News_EpaperContent.aspx?n=3778\u0026amp;s=45441\u0026amp;type=DD102593FDB1A032\u0026gt;Kim, S. (2009). Revising Perry\u0026rsquo;s measurement scale of public service motivation. \u003cem\u003eThe American Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 149\u0026ndash;163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008317681\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., \u0026amp; Cooper, B. (2018). How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 78\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12839\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e考選部 (2024)。考選統計年報。https://wwwc.moex.gov.tw/main/content/wfrmContentLink4.aspx?menu_id=268\u0026amp;all=1 [Ministry of Examination (Ed.). (2024). \u003cem\u003eExamination statistics of the Republic of China\u003c/em\u003e. Ministry of Examination.]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMussagulova, A., van der Wal, Z., \u0026amp; Chen, C. A. (2019). What is wrong with job security? \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration and Development\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 121\u0026ndash;132. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1863\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Leary, C. (2022). The public in public service motivation theory. In \u003cem\u003ePublic Service Motivation?\u003c/em\u003e Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447360810.ch003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Toole, K., Dennis, J. Kilpatrick, S., \u0026amp; Farmer, J. (2010). From passive welfare to community governance: Youth NGOs in Australia and Scotland. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 430\u0026ndash;436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerry, J. L. (2014). The motivational bases of public service: Foundations for a third wave of research. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 34\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1108/10.1080/23276665.2014.892272\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerry, J. L., \u0026amp; Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 50\u003c/em\u003e(3), 367\u0026ndash;373. https://doi.org/10.2307/976618\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrebble, M. (2016). Has the study of public service motivation addressed the issues that motivated the study? \u003cem\u003eThe American Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e(3), 267\u0026ndash;291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014554651\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e陳敦源 (2023)。\u003cstrong\u003e誰想與誰能成為公務人員？公共服務動機、創新潛能、與政治手腕的調查研究\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e臺灣政府文官調查第三期，\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTGBS III) (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e公共版\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e) (E10279)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e【原始數據】\u003c/strong\u003e。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA -E10279-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation. \u003cem\u003ePublic Management Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 545\u0026ndash;556. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701726697\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, R. (2000). The role of government in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 235\u0026ndash;243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930050035612\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"595\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI want a good pension.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI want job security.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI want promotion opportunities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMy salary should be at least as high as the compensation received by employees who have the same education level and experience that I do.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI want to make the best of my strong points.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMy work goals are consistent with my personal values.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI want to serve my country.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI value my parents\u0026rsquo; opinions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI value my friends\u0026rsquo; opinions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI care about the social perception of my job.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI often get into trouble because I am unthoughtful.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlanning can create anxiety around the tasks to be completed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI must practice self-restraint to avoid getting into trouble.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI like to take risks.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI seek new and exciting experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLife is too dull without a little danger.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB51*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost legislators speak mainly on the behalf of large consortia.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe government spends most the taxpayers\u0026apos; money where it is needed and does not waste it.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB53*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToday, it is hard to get things done in government sectors without bribing a government official.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost civil servants are competent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToday\u0026rsquo;s government officials value the opinions of the people.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToday\u0026rsquo;s government officials value social justice.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI am deeply interested in participating in activities that contribute to improving public services.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI derive purpose and value from contributing to public service programs and public policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI respect those who drive societal change by proposing public service programs and submitting public policy suggestions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eServing the public interests is more important than helping a series of individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI want to know what people in society need, so that I can help them.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEveryone in society ought to enjoy good public services even if providing universal services is costly.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the workplace, I will endeavor to protect the freedoms and rights of everyone in society.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic service programs should not only be reality-oriented but also consider the welfare of the next generation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI always feel sad when I see vulnerable people being harmed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI often observe that people depend on each other.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB611\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMany social welfare and relief programs are indispensable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB612\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContributing to society is more meaningful to me than my career development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB613\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking for the public good is worthwhile even if it costs me a promotion opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB614\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI would support a policy that benefits the people even if it hurts my personal interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB615\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the workplace, the greater self (i.e., the one that embraces public responsibility) supersedes the smaller self (i.e., the one that prioritizes personal interests).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e denotes an inverse question.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFactor Analysis Results\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"643\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKMO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal explained variance (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneration factor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplained variance (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImportance of public office (B3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.779\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB38\u0026ndash;B310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB3A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB31\u0026ndash;B34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB3B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecurity and promotion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB35\u0026ndash;B37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB3C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFitness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInnovation potential (B4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.715\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB41\u0026ndash;B43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB4A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlanning and self-restraint\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB44\u0026ndash;B46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB4B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk-taking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolitical maneuvering (B5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.721\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB52, B54\u0026ndash;B56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB5A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponsible government\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB51, B53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB5B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative politics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSM (B6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.915\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB61\u0026ndash;B65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB6A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic interest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB66\u0026ndash;B610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB6B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompassion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB611\u0026ndash;B615\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB6C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-sacrifice\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReliability Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItem (Quantity)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubscale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal scale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial perception\u0026nbsp;(B3A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB38\u0026ndash;B310 (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"11\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.89 (including inverse questions)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecurity and promotion\u0026nbsp;(B3B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB31\u0026ndash;B34 (4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFitness (B3C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB35\u0026ndash;B37 (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlanning and self-restraint (B4A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB41\u0026ndash;B43 (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk-taking (B4B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB44\u0026ndash;B46 (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponsible government (B5A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB52, B54, B55, B56 (4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative politics\u0026nbsp;(B5B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB51\u0026ndash;B53 (2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative politics\u0026nbsp;(including inverse questions) (B5B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB51r\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026ndash;B53r (2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic interest (B6A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB61\u0026ndash;B65 (5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompassion (B6B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB66\u0026ndash;B610 (5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-sacrifice (B6C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB611\u0026ndash;B615 (5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. The analysis was conducted in SPSS 22. \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003er denotes an inverse question. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling Analysis Results\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"662\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructure path\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConclusion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImportance of public office\u0026nbsp;(B3)\u0026rarr;Innovation potential\u0026nbsp;(B4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.280\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.426\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImportance of public office\u0026nbsp;(B3)\u0026rarr;political maneuvering (B5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.292\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.648\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImportance of public office\u0026nbsp;(B3)\u0026rarr;PSM (B6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.280\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInnovation potential\u0026nbsp;(B4)\u0026rarr;PSM (B6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.010\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolitical maneuvering (B5)\u0026rarr;PSM (B6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.898\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05 (significant correlation), \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01 (strong correlation),\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.005 (very strong correlation; \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003et = 1.96, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003et = 2.58, \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003et = 3.29) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eModeling Evaluation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"596\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecond-order factor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirst-order factor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lambda;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSquare\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluation result\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"10\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImportance of public office\u0026nbsp;(B3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial perception\u0026nbsp;(B3A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecurity and promotion\u0026nbsp;(B3B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarginally acceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFitness\u0026nbsp;(B3C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.41\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInnovation potential\u0026nbsp;(B4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlanning and self-restraint\u0026nbsp;(B4A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarginally acceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk-taking (B4B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolitical\u0026nbsp;maneuvering\u0026nbsp;(B5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponsible government\u0026nbsp;(B5A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarginally acceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative politics\u0026nbsp;(B5B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB51r*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB53r*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"15\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSM (B6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic interest (B6A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.34\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompassion (B6B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-sacrifice (B6C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB611\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB612\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB613\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB614\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB615\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 40px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Public service motivation, government bureaucrats survey, government bureaucrats reform, LISREL modeling","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114125/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114125/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates factors influencing Taiwanese college students' intentions to enter the civil service, a critical issue for public policy in Asia where governments often struggle to attract young talent into public service. Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach bridging public administration, sociology, and governance studies, the research applies confirmatory factor analysis and a LISREL-based structural equation model to analyze data from a 2023 national survey of Taiwanese civil service exam candidates on Public Service Motivation (PSM). The analysis reveals that both intrinsic drivers (such as commitment to public interest) and extrinsic factors (such as job security and perceived fairness) significantly shape students\u0026rsquo; aspirations for government careers. These findings affirm PSM theory in Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s context and underscore its applicability in Asian settings, indicating that personal values and contextual expectations jointly drive youth interest in public service. Policy implications are substantial: to attract and retain talented youth in government, civil service recruitment and exam reforms in Taiwan\u0026mdash;and similar Asian contexts\u0026mdash;should nurture idealistic motivations while addressing pragmatic career concerns. By integrating cross-disciplinary perspectives with advanced modeling, this study contributes original evidence to the discourse on public sector talent management and offers actionable insights for civil service human resource reforms aimed at enhancing youth engagement in governance across Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Theory to Policy: Examining Factors Shaping Taiwanese Students’ Intentions to Enter Civil Service Through PSM Modeling","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-25 07:50:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114125/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-11T07:02:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T06:53:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-21T10:12:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-07-13T15:06:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a389b015-2a24-4252-92f6-db2116147b61","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":51535207,"name":"Business and commerce/Business and management"},{"id":51535208,"name":"Social science/Business and management"},{"id":51535209,"name":"Social science/Politics and international relations"},{"id":51535210,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":51535211,"name":"Social science/Psychology"},{"id":51535212,"name":"Social science/Social policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-05T11:53:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-25 07:50:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7114125","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7114125","identity":"rs-7114125","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}