Nursing students' personality (Temperament and Character), burnout symptoms, and health and well-being

Background About 9 million nurses will be needed by 2030. To face these unprecedented times, governments/institutions focus on educating as many nursing students as possible. This strategy is clouded by burnout and lack of both health and well-being among students and by the fact that personality is one of the major determinants of these health outcomes. Nevertheless, recent findings show that personality is a complex adaptive system (i,e., nonlinear) and that combinations of people's temperament and character traits (i.e., joint personality networks) might provide further information to understand its development, academic burnout, and lack of health and well-being. Aims Our aims were to investigate the linear relationship between nursing students’ personality, burnout, health, and well-being; investigate the linear mediational effects of personality and burnout on health and well-being; and investigate differences in these health outcomes between/within students with distinct joint personality networks (i.e., nonlinear relationships). Method Swedish nursing students (189 women, 29 men) responded to the Temperament and Character Inventory, The Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey for Students, and the Public Health Surveillance Well-Being Scale. We conducted correlation analyses and Structural Equation Modeling and, for the nonlinear relationships, Latent Profile Analysis and Latent Class Analysis for clustering and then Analyses of Variance for differences in health outcomes between/within students with distinct personality networks. This study was not pre-registered. Results High levels of health and well-being and low burnout symptoms (low Emotional Exhaustion, low Cynicism, and high Academic Efficacy) were associated with low Harm Avoidance and high Self-Directedness. Some personality traits were associated with specific health outcomes (e.g., high Self-Transcendence-high Emotional Exhaustion and high Persistence-high Academic Efficacy) and their effects on health and well-being were mediated by specific burnout symptoms. Cynicism and Emotional Exhaustion predicted low levels of health and well-being, Academic Efficacy predicted high levels, and Cynicism lead both directly and indirectly to low levels of health and well-being through Emotional Exhaustion. We found two joint personality networks: students with an Organized/Reliable combination who reported being less emotionally exhausted by their studies, less cynical towards education, higher self-efficacy regarding their academic work/skills, and better health and well-being compared to nursing students with an Emotional/Unreliable combination. Conclusions The coherence of temperament-character, rather than single traits, seems to determine students’ health outcomes. Thus, nursing education might need to focus on helping students to develop professional skills and health-related abilities (e.g., self-acceptance and spiritual-acceptance), by supporting self-awareness.

The second system of learning and memory, the propositional system, is present in primates and helps the individual to be self-directed and cooperative in a social environment.The third system, the episodic system, exists only among humans and stands for humans' capacity for selfawareness, which allows introspection and recollection of autobiographical memories (Cloninger, 2004).Ergo, the second and third systems are responsible for the presence of human character, which can be defined as individual differences in values, goals and self-conscious emotions (e.g., hope, love, and faith) or what people make of themselves intentionally (Cloninger, 2004).That is, while temperament refers to the way we are born (i.e., our emotional predispositions), character traits describe individual differences in our self-object relationships, which begin with parental attachments in infancy, then self-object differentiation in toddlers, and continue to mature in a stepwise manner throughout life (Cloninger, 2004).The three character traits are: Self-Directedness (1), which refers to self-determination, being able to control, regulate, and adapt behavior in accordance to own goals and values, to be self-sufficient, self-acceptant, responsible, dependable, and effective; Cooperativeness (2) accounts for individual differences in acceptance of and identification with other people, tolerance, helpfulness, and empathy; and Self-Transcendence (3) which refers to individual differences in selflessness or self-forgetfulness, patience, spirituality, and identification with something bigger than the self that gives meaning to one's existence, such as humanity, nature, God, or the universe (Cloninger, 2004;Cloninger et al., 1993).
Importantly, these three systems of learning and memory can be dissociated functionally from one another, but normally interact jointly so that habits, goals, and values can be integrated (Cloninger, 2004;Cloninger and Cloninger, 2011;Garcia et al., 2019aGarcia et al., , 2019cGarcia et al., , 2019b)).Indeed, in three recent molecular genetic studies (Zwir et al., 2021(Zwir et al., , 2020a(Zwir et al., , 2020b) ) using three culturally diverse samples (Finland, Germany, and South Korea), we found that variants of clusters of genes, rather than single genes, are associated with personality-these genes do not only operate independently; but are organized as sets of particular Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) that co-occur in subgroups of individuals.The SNPs sets were each comprised of SNPs in many coding and noncoding genes that are distributed throughout the genome.Thus, each gene can be expected to affect many traits and many genes affect each trait because evolutionary selection operates on whole organisms, not individual genes or traits (Zwir et al., 2022(Zwir et al., , 2021(Zwir et al., , 2020a(Zwir et al., , 2020b)).
In addition, as originally proposed by Cloninger, we found that the genes that encode variability in human temperament are enriched in highly conserved molecular pathways, which are activated in experimental animals by stress reactivity and associative conditioning (i.e., the procedural brain system).In contrast, the genes encoding for human character involve specialized bipolar neurons that are functionally connected to neocortical regions in brain circuits that support saliency detection, resolution of emotional conflicts, and social cooperation for mutual benefit in great apes and humans (i.e., the prepositional brain system).The character genes also involved regions of late-myelinating neocortex in frontal, parietal, and temporal regions found only in humans that are associated with the emergence of human capacities for self-awareness, insight (i.e., immediate, accurate, and deep intuitive understanding), creative imagination, altruism, and autobiographical memory (i.e., the episodic brain system) (Zwir et al., 2022(Zwir et al., , 2021(Zwir et al., , 2020a(Zwir et al., , 2020b)).
In other words, personality is a complex adaptive system of patterns of relationships between temperament structure, character structure, and histories of behavioral conditioning and insight (social) learning, that can be measured as a biopsychosocial model of personality (Figure 1 in the main text).Seeing personality as a dynamic complex adaptive system entails a nonlinear approach that is person-centered and in which an individual is not only adapting to the environment, but also to the traits within the person (Bergman et al., 2003;Bergman and Magnusson, 1997;Bergman and Wångby, 2014;Cloninger et al., 1997;Cloninger andZwir, 2022, 2018)-that is, the notion of the individual as whole system unit which is best studied by analyzing profiles.Hence, these nonlinear dynamics might provide further information to understand academic burnout and lack of good health and well-being.

Joint Personality (Temperament-Character) Networks
Accordingly, to the notion of personality as a complex adaptive system, we found three nearly separate joint personality networks of people with different combinations of temperament and character: Creative/Reliable, Organized/Reliable, Emotional/Unreliable (Zwir et al., 2021).There was marked complexity within each network in temperament-character relations.People in the Creative/Reliable network were low in Novelty Seeking (i.e., deliberate, thrifty, and orderly), low in Harm Avoidance (i.e., optimistic, confident, outgoing, and vigorous), high in Reward Dependence (i.e., sentimental, friendly, and approval seeking), and high in Persistence (i.e., determined) in combination with a mature character development (i.e., high in all three character traits), thus, leading to high levels of well-being and good health.Individuals in the Organized/Reliable network had the same temperament configurations as those in the Creative/Reliable network and were high in both Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness, but not in Self-Transcendence, which makes them healthy, but vulnerable to existential crises.Individuals in the Emotional/Unreliable network had the highest level of ill-being and the lowest level of wellbeing, which is logical since they were high in Novelty Seeking (i.e., impulsive and extravagant), high in Harm Avoidance (i.e., pessimistic, fearful, shy, and fatigable), and high in Reward Dependence (i.e., sentimental and friendly) in combination with an immature character development (i.e., low in all three character traits).This means that they may frequently have approach-avoidance conflicts, rejection sensitivity, disorganized attachments, and different biopsychosocial health issues.Individuals in the Creative/Reliable network had the highest levels of well-being, but also had a slightly higher risk of ill-being than those in the Organized/Reliable network.
A recent cross-sectional set of studies of American, Portuguese, and Bulgarian populations have replicated these results (Garcia et al., 2022;Moreira et al., 2023Moreira et al., , 2022Moreira et al., , 2021)).Although such cross-sectional studies confound effects of aging with differences among birth cohorts, the results are consistent with extensive biopsychosocial evidence that women are more prosocial and healthier on average, particularly in Cooperativeness and Self-Transcendence.That being said, character maturity develops with age; thus, a Creative/Reliable joint personality network and high Self-Transcendence are relatively unlikely to be common in a young sample of nursing students.
Nevertheless, traits as Cooperativeness and Reward Dependence should be relatively high among nursing students, who are mostly women and have opted for a caring profession (Mihailovic et al., 2022).

Latent Profile Analysis (LPA): Temperament Profiles
The LPA using the four temperament dimensions as the profiling variable resulted in different models with distinct numbers of profiles.As indicated in Table S1, we tested the fit indices for four temperament models.Although Model 4 had the lowest AIC and SABIC and the highest entropy, profile 2 in this model had 2.2% of the population¾profiles smaller than 5% of the whole sample are usually considered spurious and non-replicable (Hipp and Bauer, 2006).Of the remaining models, Model 2 had the lowest BIC, but Model 3 had three distinct profiles with sufficient percentage of nursing students in each profile.In Model 3, about 23.5% of the nursing students were clustered in temperament profile 1 and scored low in Novelty Seeking (n), high in Harm Avoidance (H), high in Reward Dependence (R), and low in Persistence (p).About 68.5% were clustered in temperament profile 2 and scored low in Novelty Seeking (n), low in Harm Avoidance (h), high in Reward Dependence (R), and high in Persistence (P).Finally, 8.4% were clustered in temperament profile 3 and scored low in Novelty Seeking (n), high in Harm Avoidance (H), high in Reward Dependence (R), and high in Persistence (P) (see Figure S1).Hence, we chose Model 3 as the best model to describe how the different complex dynamics between temperament dimensions were expressed as temperament profiles.Next, we proceeded to validate and understand this further by investigating differences in temperament within and between individuals with the three distinct temperament profiles in Model 3.

Differences in Temperament Dimensions within Temperament Profiles
The differences in temperament dimensions within each temperament profile were measured separately using repeated measures ANOVA.Significant effects were further investigated using post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction.For temperament profile 1, the test of within-subject effects with Greenhouse-Geisser correction was significant (F(2.36,141.39)= 46.54,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.44).The post hoc test showed that all mean differences within temperament dimension were significant except for that between Harm Avoidance and Reward Dependence and between Novelty Seeking and Persistence (p > .05).The test within-subjects effect for temperament profile 2 with Greenhouse-Geisser correction indicated significant differences as well (F(2.87,447.84) = 162.80,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.51).The post hoc test showed that all mean differences within temperament dimension were significant (p < .01).Finally, the test of within-subject effects for temperament profile 3 also suggested significant differences within this profile with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction test (F(2.24,35.84) = 68.90,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.81).The post hoc test showed that differences between Harm Avoidance and Reward Dependence; Harm Avoidance and Persistence; and Reward Dependence and Persistence were not significant (p > .05).In other words, within this profile, only Novelty Seeking was significantly lower compared to the other traits which where all equally high.Hence, the differences in temperament dimensions within the temperament profiles were more accentuated for nursing students in profile 2, moderately in profile 1 and to a lesser degree in profile 3.For instance, for individuals in temperament profile 3, this means that they are equally worried and shy (high Harm Avoidance) as warm and approval-seeking (high Reward Dependence) and as perfectionistic (high Persistence), but they are extremely rigid, orderly, and conventional (low Novelty Seeking).This specific difference within the individual might lead to wanting to keep order and being conventional but being extremely worried and shy about hurting other people's feelings at the same time that the individual is extremely persistent in all these three behaviors.On the other hand, nursing students in profile 2 were more optimistic and outgoing (low Harm Avoidance) than rigid and conventional (low Novelty Seeking).Even though they were still low in Novelty Seeking, they worry less and are optimistic and warm and approval-seeking.

Differences in Temperament Dimensions between Temperament Profiles
Using a one-way MANOVA, we found significant differences in temperament dimensions between the three temperament profiles (Wilks' Lambda = 0.28, F(8, 424) = 46.86,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.47).Pairwise comparison, using a Bonferroni correction to the alpha level, indicated that all differences were significant except for profiles 1 and 2 concerning Novelty Seeking (p > .05),for profiles 2 and 3 with regard to Reward Dependence and Persistence (p > .05),and for profiles 1 and 3 with regard to Reward Dependence (p > .05).In other words, although all three temperament profiles were low in Novelty Seeking, profile 3 was slightly lower.Harm Avoidance was significantly different between all profiles-with higher levels among nursing students in profile 3 and lowest levels in profile 2. Reward Dependence was high and relatively equal in all three profiles.Last but not least, Persistence was equally high among nursing students in profiles 2 and 3 but higher than nursing students in profile 1 (see Figure S2).

The Temperament Profiles
The LPA and validation analyses conducted showed that the whole nursing student population (all three profiles) is low in Novelty Seeking (n) and high in Reward Dependence (R).That is, they are orderly, warm, and sympathetic and are also rigid and approval-seeking.Most nursing students, those in profile 2 (68.5%), reported being optimistic, outgoing, and stable (i.e., low in Harm Avoidance).Likewise, most of them reported being hard-working, determined, and perfectionistic (i.e., high Persistence), but those in profiles 2 and 3 (76.9% in total) reported higher levels in this temperament dimension.
The nursing students in temperament profile 1 might be described as inhibited (nH), rejection-sensitive (HR), and traditional (nR).Consequently, they avoid doing anything that exposes them to the risk of danger, rejection, criticism, and testing new ways of doing things.
Nevertheless, they have much social warmth (R) and are likely to be careful and dutiful in carrying out responsibilities assigned to them (n).However, they have difficulty initiating anything new because of their inhibitions rooted in their tendency to pragmatism and underachievement (p) and their fears of rejection, criticism, loss, and change (HR).Hence, we labeled temperament profile 1 as pessimistic (nHRp) (Cloninger, 2004).The nursing students in temperament profile 3 were almost as "cautious" and "warm" (nR) as those in temperament profile 1.However, the analyses showed that nursing students in profile 3 reported higher levels of both Harm Avoidance (H) and Persistence than those in profile 1.The largest difference, however, was that nursing students in profile 3 were extremely more persistent (P) and showed less differences within temperament dimensions.In other words, nursing students in profile 3 are more persistent in their tendencies towards being inhibited (nH), rejection-sensitive (HR), and traditional (nR) (Cloninger, 2004).
Hence, we refer to this profile as "painstaking" (nHRP).It is noteworthy to mention that profile 3 had a smaller number of people.
Finally, the nursing students in temperament profile 2 might be described as "reliable" (nhRP).Individuals with this temperament profile are stable (nh), warmly sociable (hR), traditional (nR), and hard-working (P).Hence, it is highly likely that they can be trusted to carry out what they are expected to do in a predictable and traditional manner and to develop a mature character (Cloninger, 2004).

Differences in Burnout Symptoms and Health and Well-Being between Nursing Students with Distinct Temperament Profiles
We investigated differences in burnout symptoms and health and well-being between nursing students with the three distinct temperament profiles using a MANOVA.The results showed that nursing students were significantly different with regard to burnout symptoms and health and wellbeing (Wilks' Lambda = 0.69, F(8, 424) = 10.73,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.17

Z-Scores
Emotional Exhaustion

Cynism Academic Efficacy
Health and Well-Being

Latent Profile Analysis (LPA): Character Profiles
The LPA using the three character dimensions as the profiling variable resulted in different models with distinct numbers of profiles.As indicated in Table S2, we tested the fit indices for four character models.Although Model 4 had the most optimum AIC and SABIC, this model had one profile with a very low number of nursing students (2.3%), which was insufficient to be considered as a separate profile (Hipp & Bauer, 2006).Model 2 had the lowest BIC and highest entropy but both profiles extracted in this model were similar: high Cooperativeness, low Self-Transcendence, and moderate Self-Directedness.As detailed in the probability plot (Figure S4), Model 3 was comprised of profile 1 with about 11.1% of the nursing students who were low in Self-Directedness (s), low in Cooperativeness (c), and low in Self-Transcendence (t); profile 2 with about 56.2% of the nursing students who were high in Self-Directedness (S), high in Cooperativeness (C), and low in Self-Transcendence (t); and profile 3 with about 32.6% of the nursing students who were high in Self-Directedness (S), high in Cooperativeness (C) and high in Self-Transcendence (T).Hence, we chose Model 3 as the best model to describe how the different complex dynamics between character dimensions were expressed as character profiles.Next, we proceeded to validate and understand this further by investigating differences in character within and between the three character profiles in Model 3.  Note: SD = Self-Directedness, CO = Cooperativeness, ST = Self-Transcendence.Class = Profile.

Differences in Character Dimensions within Character Profiles
We found significant differences in character dimensions within character profiles using repeated measures ANOVA, one ANOVA for each profile.Significant effects were further investigated using post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction.The test of within-subject effects for character profile 1 using Greenhouse-Geisser correction showed that there were significant differences within character dimensions (F(1.98,39.49) = 47.67,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.70).The post hoc test showed that individuals in profile 1 reported equal levels of Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness (p > .05)and that they reported significantly lower levels of Self-Transcendence than any of the other two character traits (p < .001).The test of within-subject effects using a Greenhouse-Geisser correction for character profile 2 also showed significant mean differences within character dimensions in this profile (F(1.87,240.58) = 559.234,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.81).The post hoc test showed that all character dimensions differed from each other within character profile 2 (p < .001).In other words, nursing students located in character profile 2 reported higher levels of Cooperativeness than Self-Directedness and Self-transcendence, whilst Self-Transcendence was the lowest of all character traits within this profile.Finally, we then tested within-subject effect differences using a Greenhouse-Geisser test showed that the character dimensions among the nursing students in this profile differed significantly from each other (F(1.95,128.89) = 57.316,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.47).The post hoc test showed that all mean differences were significant (p < .001),although lesser between Self-Directedness and Self-Transcendence (p < .01).That is, nursing students located in character profile 3 reported higher levels of Cooperativeness than Self-Directedness and Self-transcendence, but almost equal levels of Self-Directedness and Self-Transcendence.

Differences in Character Dimensions between Character Profiles
Using a one-way MANOVA, we found significant differences in character dimensions (Wilks' Lambda = 0.32, F(6, 426) = 54.80,p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.44) between the three character profiles.A post hoc test using Bonferroni correction to the alpha level indicated that all differences in character dimensions between profiles were significant except for Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness between character profiles 2 and 3 (p > .05).In other words, nursing students in profile 1 reported lower levels of Self-Directedness, Cooperativeness, and Self-Transcendence compared to those in the other two profiles.Moreover, students in profiles 2 and 3 had equally high levels of Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness, but those in profile 3 reported higher levels of Self-Transcendence.Figure S5 depicts the differences within and between profiles in the three character dimensions.

The Character Profiles
The LPA and validation analyses showed that a majority (i.e., profiles 1 and 2 or about 67.3%) of the nursing student population is low in Self-Transcendence.In other words, they are individualistic, skeptical, conventional, and cynical (Cloninger, 2004).A majority is relatively high in both Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness (i.e., profiles 2 and 3 or about 88.8%).That is, they are responsible, resourceful, self-acceptant, have a sense of purpose (i.e., high Self-Directedness) and are tolerant, empathetic, forgiving, helpful, and principled (i.e., high Cooperativeness) (Cloninger, 2004).
The nursing students in character profile 1 feel very often victimized and helpless due to low Self-Directedness and low Cooperativeness (sc), show very poor judgment due to low Self-Directedness and low Cooperativeness (st) and are distrustful due to low Cooperativeness and low Self-Transcendence (ct).In other words, they experience the world from an outlook of separateness, which leads to fear, excessive desire, and false pride or self-reproach.Hence, we labeled character profile 1 as "apathetic" (sct) (Cloninger, 2004).Indeed, individuals with this type of character report the lowest levels of overall well-being and health and experience unhealthy emotions such as anxiety and alienation and have high rates of mental and physical disorders (Cloninger, 2004).
The nursing students in character profile 2 might often be perceived as mature leaders due to high levels of both Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness (SC), logical due to high Self-Directedness and low Self-Transcendece (St), and conventional due to high Cooperativeness and low Self-transcendence (Ct).Thus, we labeled this character profile "organized" (SCt) (Cloninger, 2004).Individuals with an organized character profile are, most of the time, happy and healthy, and seldom need health care.However, when they face difficult existential challenges, such as severe illness or death, they often lack the necessary outlook of unity and connectedness needed to be resilient through such situations because they are low in Self-Transcendence (t).
Lastly, the nursing students with character profile 3 might be described as constructive, tend to keep things in perspective when faced with challenges (high Self-Directedness = S), enjoy helping others, are compassioned (high Cooperativeness = C), and seek to grow in awareness of things that go beyond human existence (high Self-Transcendence = T) (Cloninger, 2004).We labeled this profile as "creative" (SCT) (Cloninger, 2004).Individuals with a creative (SCT) character profile consistently report the highest levels of well-being, healthy longevity, optimal cardiovascular health, including a healthy lifestyle as well as reduced risk for chronic diseases (Cloninger, 2004).The levels of Self-Directedness and Self-Transcendence in this sample, however, were relatively average.Then again, the nursing students were relatively young and are therefore expected to increase in character maturity-in Scandinavia as in the rest of the world people's Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness increase from the age 25 to 35, but contrary to the rest of the world, in Scandinavia people decreases in Self-Transcendence (Josefsson et al., 2013a).

Mean Character Profiles
Self-Directedness

Differences in Burnout Symptoms and Health and Well-Being between Nursing Students with Distinct Character Profiles
We investigated mean differences in burnout symptoms and health and well-being between nursing students with the three distinct character profiles using a MANOVA, which revealed significant differences (Wilks' Lambda = 0.87, F(8, 424) = 3.75, p < .001,partial Eta squared = 0.07).
The test between-subject effects showed that Emotional Exhaustion and Cynicism differences in all three character profiles were nonsignificant (p > .05).Moreover, a post hoc test with Bonferroni correction showed that differences in Academic Efficacy were higher among nursing students in the creative (SCT) character profile compared to those in any of the other two profiles.Students in the apathetic (sct) character profile and students in the organized (SCt) profile did not differ in either Academic Efficacy or health and well-being.Lastly, students in the organized (SCt) character profile and students in the creative (SCT) character profile did not differ in health and well-being (p > .05),but those in the creative (SCT) profile reported significantly better health and well-being than those in the apathetic (sct) profile (p < .01).In other words suggesting that when Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness are high (i.e., nursing students in both the organized and creative profile), the individual can achieve high Academic Efficacy and good health and wellbeing; but it is only when Self-Transcendence is high at the same time (i.e., creative profile) that levels in these two outcomes are higher than those reported by students in the apathetic (sct) character profile.See Figure S6 for the details.The LCA for the joint personality (temperament-character) networks resulted in different models with distinct numbers of profiles.We tested the fit indices for four joint personality network models (see Table S3; the model number also stands for the number of profiles in that specific model) and found that Model 2 had the lowest AIC, BIC, and SABIC and the highest entropy.In Figure S7, we show the probability plots in Model 2 with two networks, which were evaluated as the model that best fit the data.About 40.7% of the nursing students were highly likely to belong to joint personality network 1 and about 59.3% to joint personality network 2. Table S4 displays the number and percentage of nursing students with distinct temperament and character profiles clustered in each joint personality network and also the probability that nursing students with specific temperament profiles and character profiles belong to each joint personality network.

Figure S1 .
Figure S1.Probability plot showing the three temperament profiles of the most valid model calculated using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA).

Figure S2 .
Figure S2.Mean differences in temperament dimension between and within nursing students with the distinct three temperament profiles from Model 3.

Figure S3 .
Figure S3.Mean (z-scores) differences in burnout symptoms and health and well-being between nursing students with the three distinct temperament profiles in Model 3.

Figure S4 .
Figure S4.Probability plot showing the three character profiles of the most valid model calculated using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA).

Figure S5 .
Figure S5.Mean differences in character dimension between and within nursing students with the three distinctic Character profiles in Model 3.

Figure S6 .
Figure S6.Mean (z-scores) differences in burnout symptoms and health and well-being between nursing students with the three distinct temperament profiles in Model 3.

Table S1 .
Fit indices for the four Temperament models extracted using LPA.
Note.The number of the model also indicates the number of profiles in that specific model.Green indicates the chosen model.

Table S2 .
Fit indices for the four character models extracted using LPA Note.The number of the model also indicates the number of profiles in that specific model.Green indicates the chosen model.