Next Article in Journal
Progress of Mine Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration Research Based on Bibliometric Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Smartphone User Identification/Authentication Using Accelerometer and Gyroscope Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310457
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prospects of Mortality Salience for Promoting Sustainable Public Sector Management: A Survey Experiment on Public Service Motivation

by
Zhanyu Liu
1,
Zishu Ma
2 and
Yuqiong Lei
2,*
1
School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
2
School of Public Administration, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10457; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310457
Submission received: 18 April 2023 / Revised: 15 June 2023 / Accepted: 29 June 2023 / Published: 3 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The United Nations has established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a global initiative to achieve a more sustainable future. Within these goals, SDG16 emphasizes the significance of sustainable public sector management, which profoundly influences the accomplishment of other SDGs. Enhancing public service motivation is a critical element in advancing sustainable public sector management. This study explores the potential of mortality salience as an intervention to bolster public service motivation, aiming to provide valuable insights for SDG16. Specifically, the study investigates the varied effects of mortality salience on public service motivation using a survey experiment and employs machine learning techniques. The findings reveal a significant positive impact of mortality salience on public service motivation. Furthermore, this study highlights that this impact is more prominent in organizations characterized by high levels of servant leadership and extrinsic rewards, as well as low levels of organization-based self-esteem. These findings have practical implications for fostering sustainable public sector management in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era.

1. Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a universal call to action to eradicate poverty, safeguard the environment, and ensure widespread prosperity by 2030. Among these goals, SDG16 aims to foster clean-fingered, efficient, and accountable governance institutions at all levels [1], which this study refers to as sustainable public sector management. Sustainable public sector management significantly impacts the achievement of other SDGs. For instance, SDG13 requires emissions reduction [2] but corruption within governing institutions such as governments hampers progress [3]. Similarly, innovation, a crucial component of SDG9 [4], is influenced by the efficiency of government institutions [5]. Adequate investment in education, a prerequisite for SDG4, is often impeded by officials prioritizing short-term goals [6]. Therefore, promoting sustainable public sector management is critical for realizing the entire SDG framework.
The key to promoting sustainable public sector management lies in enhancing public sector employees’ public service motivation. Public service motivation refers to a vital human resource that encourages the active participation of employees in delivering public services, reflecting their commitment to serving the community and public interest [7]. Public service motivation is associated with lower corruption tendencies, reduced turnover intention, improved personal performance, higher job satisfaction, and increased civic behavior, which all contribute to sustainable public sector management [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]; thus, this paper primarily aims to explore avenues for enhancing public sector employees’ public service motivation and providing insights for achieving SDG16.
To enhance public service motivation, previous research has examined its antecedents, which can be categorized into three groups. The first group encompasses institutional factors such as national policies and cultural norms, including policy environment, social norms, social culture, work ethics, and reciprocity norms [16,17,18,19,20,21]. The second group includes organizational factors such as leadership characteristics and the work environment [22,23], involving leader relational behavior, servant leadership, empowering leadership, transformational leadership, mission valence, organizational goal clarity, extrinsic rewards, organizational support, and organization-based self-esteem [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. The third group comprises individual factors such as demographics, upbringing, and personal experiences, such as age, gender, personality traits, income, childhood experiences, parental education, and high school diversity [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. However, these studies have not provided actionable and immediate strategies to enhance public service motivation, as these factors are difficult to change or require significant costs. Given the urgency of the SDGs’ deadline in 2030, it is crucial to identify approaches that can promptly boost public service motivation.
Recent research has found that public service motivation can be promptly activated through specific stimuli. For example, interventions involving self-persuasion, beneficiary contact [43], suggestive texts [44], question order manipulation [45], reading- and writing-based training [46], and recalling positive work experiences [47] have demonstrated the potential to enhance public service motivation. These findings suggest that public service motivation is a transient “state” that can be immediately intensified through external stimuli such as exposure to specific information or activation of specific memories.
This study focuses on one such stimulus known as mortality salience, which involves making individuals aware of the inevitability of death [48]. With the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in a significant number of deaths and constant media coverage [49], mortality salience has become a prevalent stimulus in society [50,51,52]. While mortality salience elicits negative emotions such as fear and depression [53,54], it also holds the potential to foster peace and good governance [55]. Previous research has established a positive correlation between mortality salience and altruism and prosocial motivations [56,57,58,59,60], which are closely intertwined with public service motivation [61]; however, the specific impact of mortality salience on public service motivation remains unexplored in the literature. To address this gap, this study poses the research question: How does mortality salience influence public service motivation? We recognize that adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to interventions, inspired by the field of behavioral public policy, may prove ineffective; hence, it becomes crucial for interventions aimed at enhancing public service motivation to consider the unique organizational context in which they are implemented. Building upon the aforementioned research question, we further explore the following inquiry: How do the effects of mortality salience vary across organizations with distinct characteristics? By delving into this aspect, our study aims to shed light on the potential role of mortality salience as an intervention to foster sustainable public sector management.
The primary objective of this research is to empirically examine the influence of mortality salience on public sector employees’ public service motivation through a survey experiment. Additionally, heterogeneity analysis using machine learning methods is conducted to understand how this influence varies across organizations with different characteristics. This research makes four contributions to the existing literature. Firstly, it contributes to sustainable development research by specifically focusing on promoting SDG16, while previous studies have predominantly provided guidelines for other goals [62,63,64]. Secondly, it enriches the literature on public service motivation by introducing a new means of activating individuals’ public service motivation, expanding the knowledge base in this area [43,46,47]. Thirdly, it extends the literature on mortality salience by identifying its impact on public service motivation, complementing existing constructs such as power-seeking, bodily identification, productivity, and donation behaviors [65,66,67]. Finally, this research enhances the knowledge base of experimental methods by demonstrating a detailed methodological pathway combining survey experiments with machine learning.
The subsequent sections are structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the underlying mechanism of mortality salience that activates public service motivation based on terror management theory; Section 3 outlines the methodology for hypothesis testing, including the design of a survey experiment and machine learning methods for heterogeneity analysis; Section 4 presents the average and heterogeneous effects of mortality salience on public service motivation; Section 5 summarizes the research findings and discusses their practical implications for promoting sustainable public sector management in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Terror Management Theory and Mortality Salience

The impact of mortality salience on human cognition and behavior can be better understood through the lens of terror management theory. According to this theory, humans, unlike other species, possess intellectual capacities that make them aware of their mortality. This awareness creates existential anxiety, as humans desire both self-preservation and a sense of meaning in life [68]. To manage this anxiety, humans have developed two psychological structures alongside efforts to distract themselves from death-related thoughts [69,70].
The first structure is a cultural worldview, which provides a framework of ideas that give life meaning, purpose, and significance. It offers two forms of immortality: literal immortality through spiritual beliefs such as an immortal soul or an afterlife [71], and symbolic immortality through identification with larger entities such as a nation or corporation [72]. The second structure is self-esteem, which involves the belief that one is meeting the norms and values advocated by the cultural worldview. Self-esteem plays a vital role in alleviating existential anxiety by providing a sense of value and security, often developed through early interactions with caregivers [73].
When mortality salience is evoked, individuals tend to fortify these structures [70]. In other words, mortality salience increases an individual’s worldview defense and self-esteem striving [71,74]. Mortality salience amplifies the worldview defense, resulting in aggression toward individuals holding different religious beliefs, nationalities, political views, or aesthetic preferences [74,75,76,77,78], while concurrently fostering a preference and willingness to assist those within one’s own group [79,80,81]; moreover, mortality salience serves as a driving force for individuals to safeguard and pursue self-esteem [48]. Empirical studies have demonstrated that mortality salience enhances individuals’ identification with their body, power-seeking tendencies, productivity levels, inclination toward conspicuous consumption, emphasis on financial matters, and display of honest behaviors, all of which contribute to individuals’ sense of self-esteem [65,66,67,82,83,84].
By understanding the anxiety-buffering functions of cultural worldviews and self-esteem, we gain insight into how mortality salience shapes human behavior and cognition. It highlights the powerful influence of existential concerns and the mechanisms individuals employ to navigate these concerns within the framework of terror management theory.

2.2. Mortality Salience and Public Service Motivation

We posit that worldview defense and self-esteem striving might be able to foster individuals’ public service motivation. Public service motivation encompasses four dimensions: (1) Attraction to Public Policy and Administration, which reflects a sincere interest in the field and a drive to contribute and effect positive change through policy-making. (2) Commitment to Public Values, which entails a firm belief in the importance of public service and emphasizes principles such as fairness, equity, and social justice. (3) Compassion, which embodies genuine empathy for the well-being of others, particularly the marginalized, and a motivation to advance social welfare. (4) Lastly, Self-Sacrifice, which demonstrates a willingness to prioritize the public’s interests over personal ones, going beyond expectations to serve the greater good [85]. These dimensions all stem from individuals’ pro-social and altruistic motivations [56,57,58,59,60]. Engaging in pro-social and altruistic behaviors is one way for individuals to enhance their self-esteem, as these motivations align with the norms and values advocated by most cultural worldviews [57].
Empirical studies have provided evidence that individuals’ pro-social and altruistic motivations can be triggered by mortality salience. Notably, mortality salience has been positively associated with factors such as individuals’ identification with charitable causes, willingness to donate, intergenerational altruism, and pro-environmental motivation [50,56,57,58,60,80,86,87,88,89]. Given these findings, there is substantial empirical support for the notion that reminders of mortality can prompt individuals to strengthen their psychological structures, which in turn may induce public service motivation. Building upon these arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. 
Mortality salience will positively influence public sector employees’ public service motivation.
Although terror management theory suggests that mortality salience motivates individuals to adhere to the norms or values advocated by their cultural worldview, it is important to recognize the presence of multiple coexisting norms within a cultural framework. This raises the question of which specific norms individuals will prioritize in response to mortality salience. To address this question, Jonas et al. (2008) integrated terror management theory with the focus theory of normative conduct, proposing that individuals will conform to the norm that is most salient in their current context when faced with the reality of death [90]. For example, when norms of helpfulness are prominent, mortality salience increases individuals’ inclination to offer assistance [90]; when egalitarian values are highlighted, mortality salience reduces prejudice toward marginalized groups [91]; when pro-environmental norms take center stage, mortality salience boosts pro-environmental behavior [92]; when compassionate values are made salient, mortality salience motivates individuals to uphold these values by significantly increasing their support for leaders who embody compassion [93]; and when fairness norms are emphasized, mortality salience motivates individuals to exhibit greater generosity in resource allocation [94].
Notably, the salient norms may vary across organizations with different characteristics. For instance, organizations characterized by high levels of servant leadership may give greater priority to pro-social and altruistic norms, leading to an increased manifestation of pro-social behaviors in response to mortality salience [50]. Based on these observations, it is expected that individuals within diverse organizations will exhibit variations in their adherence to pro-social and altruistic norms, resulting in heterogeneity in the impact of mortality salience on public service motivation; thus, we propose the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. 
The positive effect of mortality salience on public sector employees’ public service motivation will demonstrate heterogeneity across organizations with distinct characteristics.

3. Methodology

3.1. Survey Experiment with Machine Learning

To investigate the impact of mortality salience on public service motivation and its heterogeneity, we conducted a survey experiment incorporating machine learning. Our approach involved designing a survey experiment to examine causal relationships between mortality salience and public service motivation. Survey experiments, which efficiently administer experimental treatments through surveys, offer the advantages of cost and time-effectiveness, remote accessibility, and minimizing potential harm to participants, making them an ethical and practical choice for studying causal effects. Additionally, we employed a machine learning technique called causal forest to explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects resulting from mortality salience on public service motivation. The utilization of machine learning techniques is justified as follows.
Traditionally, the heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized experiments has been explored through iterative searches for effects in subgroups [95]; however, this approach becomes impractical when dealing with a large number of covariates. Conducting large-scale investigations of effect heterogeneity may lead to a multiple-hypothesis testing problem, rendering the standard p-values of classical (single) hypothesis tests invalid [96]. Consequently, false positives and spurious heterogeneity might be reported. For instance, in the case of fifty single-hypothesis tests, the probability of falsely rejecting at least one null hypothesis at the 5% significance level can reach 92% (1–0.9550). Recently, machine learning methods have been proposed as a solution to the multiple-hypothesis testing problem in large-scale investigations of effect heterogeneity [97].
The causal forest is a frequently used machine learning method for exploring treatment effect heterogeneity [98]. It is an algorithm that builds a random forest consisting of causal trees, specifically designed to estimate the effect of a treatment on an individual observation, known as the individual-level treatment effect. Since a single observation cannot be both treated and untreated, this effect cannot be directly measured; therefore, the causal forest method employs a predictive approach to estimate the individual-level treatment effect. Each causal tree in the causal forest divides samples into subgroups based on their covariates. Within each subgroup, there are samples that received either the experimental treatment or a placebo. Because the samples within each subgroup share similar covariates, the causal tree can unbiasedly estimate the treatment effect for that subgroup [99]. By considering the covariate characteristics and treatment effects of each subgroup, a causal forest comprising multiple causal trees can construct a predictive model to estimate the treatment effect using covariates. Finally, when this model is applied to individuals, individual-level treatment effects can be estimated by considering their individual covariate characteristics. Researchers can explore heterogeneity in treatment effects by comparing the means of individual-level treatment effects in different subgroups or by conducting regressions with estimated individual-level treatment effects as the dependent variable.

3.2. Design and Participants

To investigate the impact of mortality salience on the public service motivation of public sector employees, a randomized selection of individuals was invited to participate in an online survey. The recruitment processes are as follows:
This study employed a one-factor, between-subjects experimental design, comparing the condition of mortality salience to the control condition. Participants were recruited through the esteemed online crowdsourcing platform, Prolific. The representativeness of participants recruited via online crowdsourcing platforms is comparable to that of offline channels [100]. Among the various online crowdsourcing platforms, Prolific participants exhibit a higher caliber of responses [101]. The platform primarily attracts UK adults who are influenced by a culture of individualism. Participants from individualistic cultures tend to be more susceptible to mortality salience compared to those from Eastern collectivist cultures [102]. Upon successful completion of the experiment, participants were provided with a GBP 1.00 incentive.
The required sample size was determined through power analysis using G*Power software. Specifically, an effect size of Cohen’s d = 0.7473 was set, along with a statistical power of 99% and a significance level of α = 0.05. The value of Cohen’s d was derived from a medium effect size reported in a meta-analysis of terror management research [103], utilizing the effect size transformation tool provided by Lenhard and Lenhard (2016) [104]. Based on these calculations, a minimum of 134 samples was deemed necessary. To account for the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects resulting from mortality salience on public service motivation, the sample size was doubled [105]; thus, a minimum of 268 valid samples was required for this experiment. Considering that mortality salience experiments conducted on online crowdsourcing platforms typically encounter an attrition rate of approximately 30% (e.g., [106]), we recruited 425 participants in July 2022. These participants were employees from various prominent public sectors, including government, public administration, law enforcement, and the military.
As expected, approximately 30% (129) of the participants failed a post hoc data check. Some of these participants withdrew from the experiment, while others did not adhere to the instructions for the writing tasks. Consequently, these samples were excluded from the formal data analysis, resulting in a final sample size of 296. A chi-squared test revealed no statistically significant difference in attrition rates among the different experimental groups, χ2(1) = 0.15, p = 0.70; moreover, the covariates demonstrated a mostly balanced distribution between the valid and invalid samples, except for working years, which exhibited a statistically significant difference between the two sample types: the working years of valid samples (M = 9.86, SD = 9.35) were significantly lower than those of invalid samples (M = 12.05, SD = 11.00), t(421) = 2.09, p = 0.04. This indicates the absence of significant self-selection bias. Additionally, two individuals who reported “0” working years in the public sector were also excluded. Ultimately, the final sample consisted of 294 participants, with a mean age of 35.95 (SD = 10.57). Among these participants, 59.73% were women, 83.67% had a college degree or higher, and 54.95% reported living at an average socioeconomic status level.

3.3. Procedures and Materials

The experiment was conducted using Qualtrics, an online questionnaire platform. At the onset of the questionnaire, all participants were informed about the experiment’s three distinct parts: (1) a writing task, (2) a rating task, and (3) the collection of participants’ covariates.
Manipulation of mortality salience. Mortality salience was manipulated by randomly assigning participants to either the mortality salience or control condition. In the mortality salience condition, participants were instructed to answer two sequential questions: “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your death arouses in you” and “Jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die and once you are physically dead” [48]. These two questions have been widely used as manipulations in experimental studies on mortality salience [66,67,107]. In the control condition, the two questions pertained to a dental visit experience: “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of going to the dentist arouses in you” and “Jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you physically at the dentist” [71]. The dental visit was chosen as the control condition because it could elicit negative affects similar to the mortality salience condition, thereby further eliminating the alternative explanation that the effect of mortality salience on our dependent variable was caused by the negative affects associated with thoughts of death [71].
Following the completion of the writing task on thoughts of death or dentist visits, all participants filled out the PANAS questionnaire, which assessed their positive affect (interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, attentive, determined, active) and negative affect (distressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, afraid) on a five-point scale (one = not at all, five = extremely) [108]. The scores for positive and negative affect were separately averaged for each participant, serving as a manipulation check for mortality salience. Additionally, the time taken to complete the scale introduced a delay between the mortality salience manipulation and the dependent measure [90]. This delay is crucial for the manipulation of mortality salience, as previous research has shown that mortality salience effects occur after participants have been distracted from death-related thoughts [109].
Measurement of public service motivation. To measure participants’ public service motivation, a global public service motivation scale was employed for this current study [110,111]. This scale captures a more comprehensive understanding of public service motivation compared to traditional multidimensional scales (e.g., [85]). The global scale is not confined by dimensions predetermined by the researcher [112]. It consists of five items, such as “Meaningful public service is very important to me” and “I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another.” Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with these statements on a six-point scale (one = strongly disagree, six = strongly agree).
Covariates. Finally, the participants’ demographics and a series of organizational factors were collected to serve as covariates. Demographics encompassed gender, age, educational attainment, working years in the public sector, monthly income, political orientation, socioeconomic status, political party affiliation, and ideologies on social and economic issues. Organizational factors included leader relational behavior, servant leadership, empowering leadership, transformational leadership, mission valence, organizational goal clarity, extrinsic rewards, organizational support, and organization-based self-esteem. Table 1 provides an overview of the mechanisms through which these organizational factors influence public service motivation, along with their literature sources. The scales employed to measure these organizational factors can be found in the supplementary materials. These covariates will be utilized to control for individual differences and analyze the heterogeneous treatment effects of mortality salience on public service motivation.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Analyses

Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for the two experimental groups. Columns 1 and 2 of the table present the means and standard deviations of all covariates for participants in the mortality salience and control conditions, respectively. Column 3 provides the results of the balance test (t-test) between the two groups. According to Table 2, 146 participants were assigned to the mortality salience condition, while 148 participants were assigned to the control condition. The majority of covariates exhibit balance across the experimental groups, with the exception of servant leadership and empowering leadership, which display (marginal) significant differences between the two groups; consequently, these variables were balanced in subsequent analyses to ensure the attainment of more valid and robust hypothesis test results.

4.2. Manipulation Check

We conducted two manipulation checks prior to assessing the effects of mortality salience. Firstly, we examined the difference in the number of words written in the writing tasks between the two conditions. This step aimed to account for the potential influence of participants’ exerted effort. The t-test results revealed no significant difference in the number of words between the mortality salience condition (M = 47.72, SD = 33.80) and the control condition (M = 49.47, SD = 29.94), t(292) = 0.47, p = 0.64. This finding suggests that participants exerted a comparable level of effort across both conditions.
Secondly, we examined the differences in self-reported affect scores between the two conditions, with the goal of ruling out the alternative explanation that the effect of mortality salience on public service motivation was attributable to negative affect. The t-test results indicated that participants in the mortality salience condition did not experience higher levels of negative affect (M = 1.75, SD = 0.74) compared to those in the control condition (M = 1.87, SD = 0.88), t(292) = −1.32, p = 0.19. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the experienced levels of positive affect between participants in the mortality salience condition (M = 2.59, SD = 0.98) and the control condition (M = 2.76, SD = 0.85), t(292) = 1.57, p = 0.12. These results effectively refute the possibility that the effect of mortality salience on public service motivation was influenced by negative affect.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

Average Treatment Effect of Mortality Salience on Public Service Motivation. We initially employed a t-test to analyze the average treatment effect of mortality salience on public service motivation. The results demonstrated that participants in the mortality salience condition (M = 4.64, SD = 0.88) reported significantly higher scores for public service motivation compared to those in the control condition (M = 4.43, SD = 0.98), t(292) = −2.00, p < 0.05. Figure 1 visually represents the public service motivation scores in the two conditions. This finding substantiates our expectation that mortality salience has a noteworthy positive impact on public service motivation among public sector employees.
Given the slight imbalance in covariates between the two experimental groups, we conducted a comprehensive analysis using four-step regressions to thoroughly investigate the relationship between mortality salience and public service motivation. In Step 1 (Model 1), no covariates were controlled. In Step 2 (Model 2), demographic variables were included as covariates. In Step 3 (Model 3), organizational factors were incorporated as covariates. Finally, in Step 4 (Model 4), we employed the entropy balancing technique [113] to mitigate the differences in covariates between the mortality salience and control groups. The regression results, depicted in Table 3, consistently revealed a significantly positive coefficient for mortality salience across all four models (β > 0.104, p < 0.05). These findings strongly indicate that the manipulation of mortality salience consistently produced a robust positive effect on public service motivation, regardless of the covariate discrepancies; therefore, Hypothesis 1 receives substantial support.
Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Mortality Salience on Public Service Motivation. To estimate the individual-level treatment effects of mortality salience on public service motivation, we employed a causal forest algorithm implemented using the R package Generalized Random Forest. A predictive model was fitted, utilizing the covariates to estimate the individual-level treatment effect for each sample. The mean of the individual-level treatment effects across all samples (M = 0.195, SD = 0.039) closely aligned with the unstandardized coefficient estimated through the regression analysis (β = 0.197), indicating a high level of consistency between the average treatment effect estimated by the causal forest and the regression analysis.
Building upon the individual-level treatment effects for all samples described above, we further explored the heterogeneity of the treatment effects using two-step regressions. In Step 1, we included organizational factors as predictors (Model 1). In Step 2, we added demographics as predictors (Model 2). The results of these regression analyses are presented in Table 4. As demonstrated in the table, the coefficient of servant leadership was consistently and significantly positive across both models (β = 0.333, p < 0.01). The coefficient of extrinsic rewards exhibited a marginal yet significant positive association with the treatment effects in both models (β > 0.100, p < 0.1). Conversely, the coefficient of organization-based self-esteem was significantly negative in both models (β > −0.605, p < 0.01).
These findings suggest that the treatment effect of mortality salience on public service motivation among public sector employees varies across organizations with differing levels of servant leadership, extrinsic rewards, and organization-based self-esteem. Specifically, higher levels of servant leadership and extrinsic rewards were associated with a positive relationship with the individual-level treatment effect of mortality salience on public service motivation. On the other hand, organization-based self-esteem exhibited a negative association with the individual-level treatment effect of mortality salience on public service motivation. These results provide strong support for Hypothesis 2, highlighting the heterogeneity of the treatment effect based on these organizational factors.

5. Conclusions and Implications

In 2015, the United Nations established the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to tackle global challenges, including poverty eradication, environmental protection, and prosperity. Among these goals, SDG16 emphasizes sustainable public sector management, which plays a crucial role in achieving the other SDGs. Enhancing public service motivation among employees is vital for promoting sustainable public sector management. This study aims to explore effective strategies for enhancing public service motivation and provide insights for achieving SDG16. Previous research has examined various factors that influence public service motivation, such as institutional, organizational, and individual factors; however, actionable strategies to enhance public service motivation are still limited. Recent studies have suggested specific interventions that can activate public service motivation. This study specifically focuses on the impact of mortality salience as a potential stimulus to enhance public service motivation. Through a survey experiment and the application of machine learning techniques, our findings demonstrate that mortality salience has a significant positive effect on public sector employees’ public service motivation; moreover, we observed heterogeneity in the effect of mortality salience across organizations with different characteristics. Notably, the positive impact of mortality salience is amplified in organizations characterized by high levels of servant leadership and extrinsic rewards, as well as low levels of organization-based self-esteem. These findings carry significant theoretical and practical implications for enhancing public service motivation and advancing sustainable public sector management.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Our primary finding, which reveals a significant positive effect of mortality salience on public sector employees’ public service motivation, provides empirical evidence supporting the existence of terror management mechanisms. This implies that these mechanisms could explain the heightened level of public service motivation observed among citizens and public sector employees during the COVID-19 pandemic [114,115]. Moreover, when considering a longer-term perspective, these mechanisms may offer valuable insights into the historical transformation of the public sector’s dedication to the common good and its pro-social tendencies [116]. Furthermore, our study highlights that individuals’ public service motivation acts as a protective factor against existential anxiety triggered by mortality salience. Future research could further investigate the role of public service motivation in promoting psychological well-being during times of existential crises.
The findings from our analysis of the heterogeneous treatment effects reveal that the positive impact of mortality salience is enhanced in organizations characterized by a high level of servant leadership, which can be attributed to the cultivation of the norms of serving others by these leaders [25]. When employees perceive a strong emphasis on serving others, mortality salience is more likely to direct their attention toward public service [50]. This finding adds further weight to the widely discussed notion that leaders play a crucial role in shaping organizational norms [117]. Our novel approach of considering leadership as a moderating variable for mortality salience goes beyond the existing literature, which primarily focuses on the effect of mortality salience on leader evaluations [118,119,120,121]; however, the specific mechanisms through which servant leadership moderates the effects of mortality salience on public service motivation remain unclear. Thus, future research is needed to explore the role of servant leadership in the relationship between mortality salience and public service motivation.
Our analysis of the heterogeneous treatment effects also reveals an interesting finding: the positive impact of mortality salience is amplified in organizations that offer a high level of extrinsic rewards. This finding can be attributed to the presence of fairness norms associated with extrinsic rewards. Specifically, extrinsic rewards reflect how an organization treats its employees and acknowledges their performance fairly. In organizations where extrinsic rewards are highly emphasized, fairness norms may become more salient [122]. Consistent with the existing literature, when fairness norms are prominent, mortality salience motivates individuals to exhibit altruistic behaviors [94]. This result challenges conventional wisdom, as previous research has primarily focused on the negative association between external extrinsic rewards and public service motivation [32]; therefore, future research should explore not only the detrimental effects of external extrinsic rewards on employee motivation but also their potential positive effects.
Furthermore, our analysis of the heterogeneous treatment effects reveals that the positive impact of mortality salience is particularly pronounced in organizations characterized by low levels of organization-based self-esteem. This finding suggests that the effect of mortality salience may be mitigated by organization-based self-esteem. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with higher self-esteem are less susceptible to the influence of mortality salience [72,123]. Consequently, in organizations where organization-based self-esteem is high, the motivation for public service among individuals is less likely to be driven by mortality salience. This result sheds light on the underlying mechanism linking mortality salience and public service motivation, indicating that self-esteem plays a partial role in this relationship. It is worth noting that this study focuses on organization-based self-esteem, in contrast to the trait self-esteem examined in previous research. Future studies may delve into the distinctions between the two and their differential impacts on terror management mechanisms.

5.2. Practical Implications

Our research carries practical implications for advancing sustainable public sector management. Firstly, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there exist new opportunities to promote sustainable public sector management. Mortality salience can serve as a lever to enhance public service motivation among public sector employees. Given the heightened awareness of mortality resulting from the pandemic, the public sector can nurture public service motivation by conducting educational campaigns related to the pandemic or by encouraging reflection on the experiences of working during this challenging period. Secondly, to fully harness the potential of mortality salience in promoting sustainable public sector management, the public sector should consider implementing changes in leadership and organizational reward systems. Notably, the positive impact of mortality salience on public sector employees’ public service motivation is more pronounced in organizations characterized by high levels of servant leadership and extrinsic rewards; therefore, investing in the training of servant leaders and aligning external rewards with this leadership style is recommended. Thirdly, for public sector organizations where employees have a high perceived level of organization-based self-esteem, alternative strategies should be explored to enhance public service motivation, as these individuals are less susceptible to the influence of mortality salience.
By implementing these recommendations, the public sector can effectively harness the power of mortality salience to foster sustainable public sector management and enhance their employees’ public service motivation.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The current study encompasses several limitations that warrant careful consideration. Firstly, the examination of public service motivation was focused on public sector employees as a whole, thereby neglecting the potential heterogeneous effects of mortality salience on public service motivation in diverse sectors such as the government and military. Future research should undertake a comprehensive exploration of these distinct public sectors to systematically compare and elucidate the underlying mechanisms through which mortality salience influences employees. Secondly, the participants in our study were primarily drawn from individualistic cultures, thereby limiting the generalizability of our findings to collectivist cultures. To overcome this limitation, future studies should replicate our research by enlisting participants from collectivist cultures, thus ensuring the broader applicability and relevance of our findings. Lastly, our study employed an experimental approach to investigate the impact of mortality salience on public service motivation. Although this approach effectively assesses causal effects through a between-subjects design, it may not fully capture the intricate mechanisms through which mortality salience precisely affects individuals’ public service motivation. To gain deeper insights, future endeavors could incorporate qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews combined with grounded theory, to unravel the multifaceted mechanisms underlying this relationship.
By acknowledging these limitations and addressing them in future research, we can enrich our understanding of the effects of mortality salience on public service motivation across diverse sectors and cultural contexts.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su151310457/s1, Table S1: Description of the scales used to in the paper. References [124,125,126,127,128,129] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.L.; Methodology, Z.M.; Software, Z.M.; Validation, Z.M.; Formal analysis, Z.M.; Investigation, Z.L.; Resources, Z.L.; Data curation, Z.M.; Writing—original draft, Z.L.; Writing—review & editing, Z.L.; Visualization, Z.M.; Supervision, Y.L.; Project administration, Y.L.; Funding acquisition, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Major Project Cultivation Plan of Hunan University (521119400222), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2022JJ30174), and the Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Hunan Province (18JD17).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the study does not involve any risk to the life or health of the participants. No substance has been tested on the participants or put them in danger at any time.

Informed Consent Statement

All the participants were well versed on the study intentions and were required to consent before enrollment.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  2. Khan, S.A.R.; Ibrahim, R.L.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Yu, Z. An ideology of sustainability under technological revolution: Striving towards sustainable development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fhima, F.; Nouira, R.; Sekkat, K. How does corruption affect sustainable development? A threshold non-linear analysis. Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 78, 505–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khan, S.A.R.; Umar, M.; Asadov, A.; Tanveer, M.; Yu, Z. Technological revolution and circular economy practices: A mechanism of green economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sun, H.; Edziah, B.K.; Sun, C.; Kporsu, A.K. Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2019, 135, 111002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bonfiglioli, A.; Gancia, G. Uncertainty, electoral incentives and political myopia. Econ. J. 2013, 123, 373–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Brewer, G.A.; Selden, S.C. Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 1998, 8, 413–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, S. Does person-organization fit matter in the public sector? Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 830–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ritz, A.; Brewer, G.A.; Neumann, O. Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Adm. Rev. 2016, 76, 414–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Caillier, J.G. Does public service motivation mediate the relationship between goal clarity and both organizational commitment and extra-role behaviours? Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 300–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pandey, S.K.; Wright, B.E.; Moynihan, D.P. Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. Int. Public Manag. J. 2007, 11, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Campbell, J.W.; Im, T.; Jeong, J. Internal efficiency and turnover intention: Evidence from local government in South Korea. Public Pers. Manag. 2014, 43, 259–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gans-morse, J.; Kalgin, A.; Klimenko, A.; Vorobyev, D.; Yakovlev, A. Public service motivation as a predictor of corruption, dishonesty, and altruism. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2022, 32, 287–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Scott, P.G.; Pandey, S.K. Red Tape and Public Service Motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2005, 25, 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Awan, S.; Bel, G.; Esteve, M. The benefits of PSM: An oasis or a mirage? J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2020, 30, 619–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Anderfuhren-biget, S.; Varone, F.; Giauque, D. Policy environment and public service motivation. Public Adm. 2014, 92, 807–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kim, S.H.; Kim, S. The role of social norms on public service motivation and prosocial behavior: Moderating effect versus direct effect. Int. J. Public Adm. 2022, 45, 1122–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ritz, A.; Brewer, G.A. Does societal culture affect public service motivation? Evidence of sub-national differences in Switzerland. Int. Public Manag. J. 2013, 16, 224–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hassan, H.A.; Ahmad, A.B. The relationship between Islamic work ethic and public service motivation. Adm. Soc. 2021, 53, 1390–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Neumann, O. “Giving something back to society”: A study exploring the role of reciprocity norms in public service motivation. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2019, 39, 159–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, H.J.; Min, K.R.; Kim, M.Y.; Park, S.M. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership and ethical climate on public service motivation in Korea and China: Moderating role of confucian values. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moynihan, D.P.; Pandey, S.K. The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hameduddin, T.; Engbers, T. Leadership and public service motivation: A systematic synthesis. Int. Public Manag. J. 2022, 25, 86–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, C.; Hsieh, C.; Chen, D. Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Adm. 2014, 92, 954–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schwarz, G.; Newman, A.; Cooper, B.; Eva, N. Servant leadership and follower job performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public Adm. 2016, 94, 1025–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Park, S.M.; Rainey, H.G. Leadership and public service motivation in U.S. federal agencies. Int. Public Manag. J. 2008, 11, 109–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Paarlberg, L.E.; Lavigna, B. Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Adm. Rev. 2010, 70, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wright, B.E.; Wright, B.E. Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ripoll, G. In charge of safeguarding the public interest: The role of goal clarity in shaping public service motivation and the acceptance of unethical behaviours. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2022, 88, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Crucke, S.; Kluijtmans, T.; Meyfroodt, K.; Desmidt, S. How does organizational sustainability foster public service motivation and job satisfaction? The mediating role of organizational support and societal impact potential. Public Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 1155–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, B.; Perry, J.L.; Tan, X.; Zhou, X. A cross-level holistic model of public service motivation. Int. Public Manag. J. 2018, 21, 703–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wenzel, A.; Krause, T.A.; Vogel, D. Making performance pay work: The impact of transparency, participation, and fairness on controlling perception and intrinsic motivation. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2019, 39, 232–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Parola, H.R.; Harari, M.B.; Herst, D.E.L.; Prysmakova, P. Demographic determinants of public service motivation: A meta-analysis of PSM-age and -gender relationships. Public Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 1397–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van Witteloostuijn, A.; Esteve, M.; Boyne, G. Public sector motivation ad fonts personality traits as antecedents of the motivation to serve the public interest. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2017, 27, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Khim, K. Are health workers motivated by income? Job motivation of Cambodian primary health workers implementing performance-based financing. Glob. Health Action 2016, 9, 31068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Evans, C.A.; Evans, G.R. Adverse childhood experiences as a determinant of public service motivation. Public Pers. Manag. 2019, 48, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, C.; Hsieh, C.; Chen, D.; Wen, B. Like father, like son: Explicating parental influence on adult children’ s public sector preference. Int. Public Manag. J. 2022, 25, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vandenabeele, W. Who wants to deliver public service? Do institutional antecedents of public service motivation provide an answer? Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2011, 31, 87–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, S. Education and public service motivation: A longitudinal study of high school graduates. Public Adm. Rev. 2021, 81, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Holt, S.B.; Choi, H. When knowing is caring: Examining the relationship between diversity exposure and PSM. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2022, 42, 226–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tao, L.; Wen, B. The bedrock of public service motivation among Chinese adolescents: Family and school institutions. J. Asian Public Policy 2021, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Perry, J.L.; Brudney, J.L.; Coursey, D.; Littlepage, L. What drives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Adm. Rev. 2008, 68, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bellé, N. Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pedersen, M.J. Activating the forces of public service motivation: Evidence from a low-intensity randomized survey experiment. Public Adm. Rev. 2015, 75, 734–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meyer-sahling, J.; Mikkelsen, K.S.; Schuster, C. The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behaviour in the public sector: Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2017, 29, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Christensen, R.K.; Wright, B.E. Public service motivation and ethical behavior: Evidence from three experiments. J. Behav. Public Adm. 2018, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nicholson-crotty, S.; Nicholson-crotty, J.; Li, D.; Christensen, R.K. Exploring the conditionality of public service motivation: Evidence from a priming experiment. Asia Pac. J. Public Adm. 2022, 44, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S.; Pyszczynski, T. Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Zanna, M.P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; Volume 29, pp. 61–139. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yoon, S.; Mcclean, S.T.; Chawla, N.; Kim, J.K.; Koopman, J.; Rosen, C.C.; Trougakos, J.P.; McCarthy, J.M. Working Through an “Infodemic”: The impact of COVID-19 news consumption on employee uncertainty and work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hu, J.; He, W.; Zhou, K. The mind, the heart, and the leader in times of crisis: How and when COVID-19-triggered mortality salience relates to state anxiety, job engagement, and prosocial behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 105, 1218–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chew, P.K.H. Big Data analysis of terror management theory’s predictions in the COVID-19 pandemic. OMEGA J. Death Dying 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pyszczynski, T.; Lockett, M.; Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S. Terror management theory and the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Humanist. Psychol. 2021, 61, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, Y.; Lv, X.; Tang, Z. The impact of mortality salience on quantified self behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2021, 180, 110972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Paredes, M.R.; Apaolaza, V.; Fernandez-robin, C.; Hartmann, P.; Yañez-martinez, D. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on subjective mental well-being: The interplay of perceived threat, future anxiety and resilience. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2020, 170, 110455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kayser, D.N.; Fritsche, I.; Jonas, E. Mortality salience and its effects on peace processes: A review. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 39, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hu, S.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, N.; Zhu, J. The impact of mortality salience on intergenerational altruism and the perceived importance of sustainable development goals. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hirschberger, G.; Ein-Dor, T.; Almakias, S. The self-protective altruist: Terror management and the ambivalent nature of prosocial behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 666–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, G.; Crossland, C.; Huang, S. That could have been me: Director deaths, mortality salience and CEO prosocial behavior. Manag. Sci. 2019, 66, 3142–3161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lee, J.; Kim, Y. When thinking of my death leads to thinking of others’ deaths: The effect of collectivism, psychological closeness, and mortality salience on prosocial behavioral intentions in the Sewol ferry disaster. J. Risk Res. 2021, 24, 756–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bruine de Bruin, W.; Ulqinaku, A. Effect of mortality salience on charitable donations: Evidence from a national sample. Psychol. Aging 2021, 36, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Perry, J.L. Antecedents of public service motivation. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 1997, 7, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tiba, S. Unlocking the poverty and hunger puzzle: Toward democratizing the natural resource for accomplishing SDGs 1 & 2. Resour. Policy 2023, 82, 103516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sadoff, C.W.; Borgomeo, E.; Uhlenbrook, S. Rethinking water for SDG 6. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 346–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jain, A.; Henderson, I.; Jain, P. Research trends, themes, and insights on artificial neural networks for smart cities towards SDG-11. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 412, 137300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Belmi, P.; Pfeffer, J. Power and Death: Mortality salience increases power seeking while feeling powerful reduces death anxiety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 702–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Goldenberg, J.L.; McCoy, S.K.; Pyszczynski, T.; Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S. The body as a source of self-esteem: The effect of mortality salience on identification with one’s body, interest in sex, and appearance monitoring. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ciaramelli, E.; Giannetti, C.; Orsini, R. Does death make us all equal? Materialism and status-seeking under mortality salience. Int. Rev. Econ. 2019, 66, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T.; Solomon, S. The causes and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In Public Self and Private Self; Baumeister, R.F., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 190–212. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pyszczynski, T.; Solomon, S.; Greenberg, J. Thirty years of terror management theory: From genesis to revelation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 52, 1–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Solomon, S.; Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T. A Terror Management Theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; Volume 24, pp. 93–159. [Google Scholar]
  71. Dechesne, M.; Pyszczynski, T.; Arndt, J.; Ransom, S.; Sheldon, K.M.; Van Knippenberg, A.; Janssen, J. Literal and symbolic immortality: The effect of evidence of literal immortality on self-esteem striving in response to mortality salience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 722–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Harmon-jones, E.; Simon, L.; Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T.; Solomon, S.; Mcgregor, H. Terror management theory and self-esteem: Evidence that increased self- esteem reduced mortality salience effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 72, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S.; Pyszczynski, T.; Rosenblatt, A.; Burling, J.; Pinel, E. Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence that self-esteem serves an anxiety-buffering function. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 63, 913–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T.; Solomon, S.; Rosenblatt, A.; Veeder, M.; Kirkland, S.; Lyon, D. Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nelson, L.J.; Moore, D.L.; Olivetti, J.; Scott, T. General and personal mortality salience and nationalistic bias. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 23, 884–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mcgregor, H.A.; Lieberman, J.D.; Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S.; Arndt, J.; Simon, L.; Pyszczynski, T. Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 590–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Harmon-jones, E.; Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S.; Simon, L. The effects of mortality salience on intergroup bias between minimal groups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 26, 677–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Greenberg, J.; Kosloff, S. Terror management theory: Implications for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2008, 2, 1881–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Castano, E.; Yzerbyt, V.; Paladino, M.P.; Sacchi, S. I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 28, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Jonas, E.; Schimel, J.; Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T. The scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 28, 1342–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jonas, E.; Fritsche, I.; Greenberg, J. Currencies as cultural symbols—An existential psychological perspective on reactions of Germans toward the Euro. J. Econ. Psychol. 2005, 26, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kasser, T.; Sheldon, K.M. Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 11, 348–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Zaleskiewicz, T.; Gasiorowska, A.; Kesebir, P.; Luszczynska, A.; Pyszczynski, T. Money and the fear of death: The symbolic power of money as an existential anxiety buffer. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Schindler, S.; Reinhard, M.; Dobiosch, S.; Steffan-Fauseweh, I.; Özdemir, G.; Greenberg, J. The attenuating effect of mortality salience on dishonest behavior. Motiv. Emot. 2019, 43, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Perry, J.L. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 1996, 6, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Fritsche, I.; Häfner, K. The malicious effects of existential threat on motivation to protect the natural environment and the role of environmental identity as a moderator. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 570–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dunn, L.; White, K.; Dahl, D.W. A little piece of me: When mortality reminders lead to giving to others get access arrow. J. Consum. Res. 2020, 47, 431–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cai, F.; Wyer, R.S. The impact of mortality salience on the relative effectiveness of donation appeals. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zaleskiewicz, T.; Gasiorowska, A.; Kesebir, P. The Scrooge effect revisited: Mortality salience increases the satisfaction derived from prosocial behavior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 59, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jonas, E.; Martens, A.; Kayser, D.N.; Fritsche, I.; Sullivan, D.; Greenberg, J. Focus theory of normative conduct and terror-management theory: The interactive impact of mortality salience and norm salience on social judgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 95, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gailliot, M.T.; Stillman, T.F.; Schmeichel, B.J.; Maner, J.K.; Plant, E.A. Mortality salience increases adherence to salient norms and values. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 993–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Fritsche, I.; Jonas, E.; Kayser, D.N.; Koranyi, N. Existential threat and compliance with pro-environmental norms. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Iii, K.E.V.; Arndt, J.; Motyl, M.; Pyszczynski, T. Compassionate values and presidential politics: Mortality salience, compassionate values, and support for Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2009, 9, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jonas, E.; Sullivan, D.; Greenberg, J. Generosity, greed, norms, and death—Differential effects of mortality salience on charitable behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Athey, S.; Imbens, G.W. The econometrics of randomized experiments. In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments; Banerjee, A.V., Duflo, E., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 73–140. [Google Scholar]
  96. List, J.A.; Shaikh, A.M.; Xu, Y. Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics. Exp. Econ. 2019, 22, 773–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Athey, S.; Imbens, G.W. Machine Learning Methods for Estimating Heterogeneous Causal Effects. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.01132v1.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  98. Tiffin, A. Machine Learning and Causality: The Impact of Financial Crises on Growth. Available online: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2019/228/article-A001-en.xml?lang=en&language=en (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  99. Wager, S.; Athey, S. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2018, 113, 1228–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Mullinix, K.J.; Leeper, T.J.; Druckman, J.N.; Freese, J. The generalizability of survey experiments. J. Exp. Polit. Sci. 2015, 2, 109–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Peer, E.; Brandimarte, L.; Samat, S.; Acquisti, A. Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 70, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Xiao, Q.; He, W.; Zhu, Y. Re-examining the relationship between mortality salience and prosocial behavior in Chinese context. Death Stud. 2017, 41, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Burke, B.L.; Martens, A.; Faucher, E.H. Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 14, 155–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lenhard, W.; Lenhard, A. Computation of Effect Sizes. Available online: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  105. Tipton, E.; Yeager, D.S.; Iachan, R.; Schneider, B. Designing probability samples to study treatment effect heterogeneity. In Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment; Lavrakas, P.J., Traugott, M.W., Kennedy, C., Holbrook, A.L., de Leeuw, E., West, B., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 435–456. [Google Scholar]
  106. Kheibari, A.; Cerel, J. Does self-esteem inflation mitigate mortality salience effects on suicide attitudes? Suicide Life-Threat. Behav. 2021, 51, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yen, C.L.; Lin, C.Y. The effects of mortality salience on escalation of commitment. Int. J. Psychol. 2012, 47, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Crawford, J.R.; Henry, J.D. The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2004, 43, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T.; Solomon, S.; Simon, L.; Breus, M. Role of consciousness and accessibility of death-related thoughts in mortality salience effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 627–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Alonso, P.; Lewis, G.B. Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2001, 31, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wright, B.E.; Pandey, S.K.; Moynihan, D.P. Pulling the Levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wright, B.E.; Christensen, R.K.; Pandey, S.K. Measuring public service motivation: Exploring the equivalence of existing global measures. Int. Public Manag. J. 2013, 16, 197–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hainmueller, J. Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit. Anal. 2012, 20, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Xiaohe, Z.; Yu, W.; Liu, B.; Huang, X.; Wang, H.; Zhao, X.; Cao, D. What motivates individual public service motivation and cooperation at the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak: A cross-sectional survey. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 2022, 37, 513–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rauhaus, B.M. Public service motivation of street-level bureaucrats amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: An analysis of experiences in implementation of an at-home vaccination program. State Local Gov. Rev. 2022, 54, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Frimer, J.A.; Aquino, K.; Gebauer, J.E.; Lei, L.; Oakes, H. A decline in prosocial language helps explain public disapproval of the US Congress. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 6591–6594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Taggar, S.; Ellis, R. The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Cohen, F.; Solomon, S.; Maxfield, M.; Pyszczynski, T.; Cohen, F.; Solomon, S.; Maxfield, M.; Pyszczynski, T.; Greenberg, J. Fatal attraction: The effects of mortality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 15, 846–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hoyt, C.L.; Simon, S.; Reid, L. Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects of mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. Leadersh. Q. 2009, 20, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Cohen, F.; Solomon, S.; Kaplin, D. You’re hired! Mortality salience increases Americans’ support for Donald Trump. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2017, 17, 339–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Landau, M.J.; Solomon, S.; Greenberg, J.; Cohen, F.; Pyszczynski, T.; Arndt, J.; Miller, C.H.; Ogilvie, D.M.; Cook, A. Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on Support for president George W. Bush. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2004, 30, 1136–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  122. Ismail, A.; Ridwan, M.; Razak, A. Performance-based reward administration enhancing employees’ feelings of interactional justice. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2017, 12, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Wisman, A.; Heflick, N.A. Hopelessly mortal: The role of mortality salience, immortality and trait self-esteem in personal hope. Cogn. Emot. 2016, 30, 868–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Carmeli, A.; Ben-Hador, B.; Waldman, D.A.; Rupp, D.E. How leaders cultivate social capital and nurture employee vigor: Implications for job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1553–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Meuser, J.D.; Hu, J.; Wu, J.; Liao, C. Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Konczak, L.J.; Stelly, D.J.; Trusty, M.L. Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2000, 60, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pandey, S.K.; Rainey, H.G. Public managers’ perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models. Int. Public Manag. J. 2006, 9, 85–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Eisenberger, R.; Cummings, J.; Armeli, S.; Lynch, P. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 812–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Pierce, J.L.; Gardner, D.G.; Cummings, L.L.; Dunham, R.B. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1989, 32, 622–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10457 g001 550
Figure 1. Public Service Motivation in Two Conditions. Note: ** represents a significant difference at the 5% level.
Figure 1. Public Service Motivation in Two Conditions. Note: ** represents a significant difference at the 5% level.
Sustainability 15 10457 g001
Table
Table 1. The description of organizational factors.
Table 1. The description of organizational factors.
VariablesDefinitionsSource
Leader relational behaviorIt reflects the degree to which leaders cultivate robust interpersonal connections among team members, enhancing public service motivation by fostering a sense of trust within the workplace. [24]
Servant leadershipIt signifies the extent to which leaders cater to the needs and interests of their followers, enhancing public service motivation by establishing a culture that inspires employees to serve others. [25]
Empowering leadershipIt denotes the degree to which leaders empower their employees, enhancing public service motivation by granting individuals autonomy and decision-making authority. [26]
Transformational leadershipIt signifies the extent to which leaders transform the attitudes and commitment of their followers toward the organization’s mission, enhancing public service motivation by encouraging employees to surpass self-interest and work toward greater objectives. [27]
Mission valenceIt represents the perceived attractiveness and salience of an organization’s purpose by its employees, enhancing public service motivation by heightening the perceived significance of their work. [28]
Organizational goals clarityIt represents the extent to which employees perceive clarity in the organization’s mission or goals, enhancing public service motivation by strengthening their commitment to the organization. [29]
Extrinsic rewardsIt represents the likelihood of employees receiving a salary increase or promotion after fulfilling their job responsibilities, decreasing public service motivation by crowding out the intrinsic motivation to participate in public service. [32]
Organizational supportIt represents the extent to which employees feel valued and cared for by the organization, enhancing improved public service motivation by fostering the internalization of the value of public service. [30]
Organization-based self-esteemIt encompasses individuals’ self-perceived value within an organizational context, shaping their sense of worth as members of the organization and enhancing public service motivation by igniting enthusiasm for their work.[31]
Table
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, By Experimental Group.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, By Experimental Group.
CovariatesMortality Salience ConditionControl Conditionp-Value
Gender1.60(0.49)1.60(0.49)0.96
Age36.08(10.58)35.82(10.59)0.83
Educational background:
High school and below (%)0.15(0.36)0.18(0.38)0.56
College or university (%)0.51(0.50)0.51(0.50)1.00
Graduate school and above (%)0.34(0.47)0.30(0.46)0.56
Working years10.08(8.94)9.78(9.75)0.78
Political orientation3.16(1.36)3.17(1.43)0.97
Monthly income1.71(0.66)1.82(0.83)0.21
Socio-economic status2.83(0.79)2.82(0.84)0.90
Political party affiliation4.57(1.19)4.57(1.53)0.99
Ideology on social issues3.18(1.47)2.99(1.44)0.26
Ideology on economic issues3.27(1.37)3.16(1.39)0.49
Leader relational behavior3.73(0.97)3.62(0.95)0.34
Servant leadership4.51(1.11)4.12(1.23)0.00
Empowering leadership5.07(1.04)4.85(1.02)0.08
Transformational leadership3.39(0.91)3.27(1.01)0.25
Mission valence4.26(0.81)4.27(0.87)0.97
Organizational goals clarity4.08(0.81)3.93(1.11)0.21
Extrinsic rewards2.30(0.89)2.20(0.99)0.38
Organizational support4.33(1.13)4.11(1.24)0.13
Organization-based self-esteem3.97(0.69)3.90(0.72)0.40
Observations146 148
Note: Standard deviation in parentheses.
Table
Table 3. The Results of Average Treatment Effects Analyses.
Table 3. The Results of Average Treatment Effects Analyses.
Independent VariablePublic Service Motivation
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Experimental manipulation:
Mortality salience0.116 ** (0.109)0.124 ** (0.111)0.105 ** (0.098)0.104 ** (0.094)
Demographics:
Gender 0.102 * (0.116)0.051 (0.101)0.048 (0.101)
Age −0.095 (0.009)−0.061 (0.008)−0.076 (0.007)
Educational attainment −0.017 (0.083)−0.039 (0.074)−0.060 (0.074)
Working years 0.060 (0.010)0.057 (0.009)0.045 (0.008)
Political orientation −0.044 (0.076)0.074 (0.065)0.059 (0.065)
Monthly income 0.123 (0.095)0.116 * (0.079)0.106 (0.080)
Socioeconomic status −0.003 (0.081)−0.064 (0.070)−0.051 (0.069)
Political party affiliation 0.104 (0.046)0.104 * (0.042)0.085 (0.040)
Ideology on social issues 0.136 (0.071)0.059 (0.062)0.079 (0.064)
Ideology on economic issues −0.185 ** (0.053)−0.209 *** (0.048)−0.226 *** (0.051)
Organizational factors:
Leader relational behavior 0.169 *** (0.060)0.162 ** (0.063)
Servant leadership −0.000 (0.088)0.024 (0.089)
Empowering leadership −0.022 (0.089)−0.027 (0.089)
Transformational leadership 0.205 ** (0.078)0.193 *** (0.072)
Mission valence 0.088 (0.085)0.091 (0.083)
Organizational goals clarity 0.040 (0.079)0.091 (0.076)
Extrinsic rewards 0.037 (0.063)0.041 (0.062)
Organizational support −0.146 (0.073)−0.124 (0.074)
Organization-based self-esteem 0.281 *** (0.128)0.255 *** (0.122)
Observations294293293293
adj. R20.0100.0420.2780.295
Note: (1) Standardized beta coefficients; (2) Standard errors in parentheses; (3) * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. The Results of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Analyses.
Table 4. The Results of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Analyses.
Independent VariableIndividual-Level Treatment Effects
Model 1Model 2
Organizational factors:
Leader relational behavior0.039 (0.003)0.054 (0.003)
Servant leadership0.333 *** (0.003)0.333 *** (0.003)
Empowering leadership0.017 (0.003)0.026 (0.003)
Transformational leadership0.065 (0.003)0.038 (0.003)
Mission valence0.010 (0.004)0.030 (0.004)
Organizational goals clarity0.014 (0.003)−0.015 (0.004)
Extrinsic rewards0.100 * (0.002)0.102 * (0.002)
Organizational support−0.094 (0.003)−0.083 (0.003)
Organization-based self-esteem−0.598 *** (0.004)−0.605 *** (0.004)
Demographics:
Gender 0.040 (0.004)
Age −0.212 *** (0.000)
Educational attainment −0.008 (0.003)
Working years 0.147 ** (0.000)
Political orientation 0.052 (0.003)
Monthly income −0.036 (0.003)
Socioeconomic status 0.049 (0.003)
Political party affiliation 0.021 (0.002)
Ideology on social issues 0.142 (0.003)
Ideology on economic issues −0.011 (0.002)
Observations293293
adj. R20.2390.266
Note: (1) Standardized beta coefficients; (2) Standard errors in parentheses; (3) * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Z.; Ma, Z.; Lei, Y. Prospects of Mortality Salience for Promoting Sustainable Public Sector Management: A Survey Experiment on Public Service Motivation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310457

AMA Style

Liu Z, Ma Z, Lei Y. Prospects of Mortality Salience for Promoting Sustainable Public Sector Management: A Survey Experiment on Public Service Motivation. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310457

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Zhanyu, Zishu Ma, and Yuqiong Lei. 2023. "Prospects of Mortality Salience for Promoting Sustainable Public Sector Management: A Survey Experiment on Public Service Motivation" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310457

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop