Challenge-hindrance Stressor Framework Research Articles

Realizing Challenges and Guarding Against Threats: Interactive Effects of Regulatory Focus and Stress on Performance

Self-regulation seems crucial to understanding how employees perform under stress because employees must regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behavior to deal effectively with work stress. Integrating regulatory focus theory and the challenge–hindrance stressor framework, we theorized that the effects of regulatory focus on job performance would vary as a function of the level of stress employees experience. Specifically, we contend that employees are more efficacious and motivated (and thus perform better) when they have established goal and coping strategies that allow them to cope with the stress they face; those lacking in these strategies are likely to find the stress overwhelming and taxing (and perform worse). Using multisource data of 160 salespersons, we investigated this relationship with two measures of job performance. We found that challenge stress moderates the relationship between promotion focus and job performance: When challenge stress is high, promotion focus is positively related to job performance; when low, promotion focus is negatively or not significantly related to job performance. We also found that hindrance stress moderates the relationship between prevention focus and job performance: When hindrance stress is low, prevention focus is negatively related to job performance, but when high, prevention focus is positively related to job performance. Moreover, we find some support for three-way interactions suggesting that using mismatched goal and coping strategies is especially harmful. Our results explain performance differences in high-stress situations and highlight the important role of self-regulation when employees are in stressful conditions.

Building resilience through exposure to stressors: The effects of challenges versus hindrances.

This paper explores the potential for certain types of stressors to build resilience in the occupational setting. Using the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000), we propose that challenge stressors have the potential to promote the capacity for resilience, whereas hindrance stressors experienced in the workplace erode resilient functioning. Employing a 2-wave longitudinal design we examined the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on psychological resilience and strain 3 months later. Two-hundred and 8 working adults (48.1% female) participated in both surveys. Findings indicated that Time 1 challenge stressors had a significant effect on psychological resilience 3 months later (Time 2). In contrast, Time 1 hindrance stressors positively predicted Time 2 strain and negatively predicted psychological resilience. Moreover, resilience mediated the relationship between Time 1 stressors and Time 2 strain. These results demonstrate the potential positive and negative impacts of workplace stressor types on psychological resilience, and provide an exploration of a mechanism through which challenge and hindrance stressors influence well-being. This analysis also investigated the role of resilience in moderating the relationship between hindrances and strain. Some evidence emerged for the moderating role of resilience in the hindrance-strain relationship. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision

SummaryPrevious research on the job demand–control–support (JDCS) model of occupational stress has generally been inconsistent at best regarding a key issue: the interaction of demands, control, and support in predicting employee health and well‐being. However, the model continues to be tested in a variety of studies and academic journals owing to its intuitive appeal. By incorporating conservation of resources theory with knowledge from the challenge–hindrance stressor framework, we proposed that hindrance stressors, not the challenge stressors commonly assessed when testing JDCS theory, will provide validation for the model. A two‐wave panel study of 228 employees in a variety of occupations provided support for three‐way interactions between hindrance demands, control, and support predicting job‐related anxiety and physical symptoms. Three‐way interactions using a challenge demand (forms of workload) were not significant, consistent with our propositions. In summary, this study supports the buffering effect of control and support on the relationship between job demands and strain only when job demands reflect hindrance stressors, thereby proposing to alter the JDCS model by specifying that it applies primarily to hindrance stressors in a job hindrance–control–support model. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Goal Clarity and Peer Support in Stressor--Strain Relationships: An Experience Sampling Study

Drawing on the challenge-hindrance stressor framework and the job demands-control-support model, this study investigates the moderating role of goal clarity and peer support within the relationship...

Navigating Uncharted Waters

Although the stress and socialization literatures have flourished over the past several decades, they have done so largely independently, and our understanding of the cost of stress to organizations in the form of newcomer turnover, lowered adjustment, and the health and well-being of newcomers is largely unknown. This review takes an explicitly newcomer-centric perspective toward the socialization process by examining newcomer experiences through the lens of popular models of work stress, including the job demands-resources model, the transactional theory of stress, and the challenge-hindrance stressor framework. In doing so, we identify individual and work-related factors that contribute to the experience of stress for newcomers and point to ways in which organizational and employee-driven inputs can assist in building and acquiring important resources needed to cope with the demands faced in a new work role. In addition, we offer a framework that incorporates individual experiences and behaviors as they relate to newcomer stress in the context of socialization. This framework delineates the newcomer stress appraisal process and describes the impact these appraisals have on the experience of stress or engagement for new employees as well as the behaviors that can be expected in reaction to those states. Through this process, our review highlights natural points for integration between stress and socialization research and identifies potential areas for future investigation that leverage understanding of work stress to expand socialization theory and practice.

Do Job Demands of Chinese Manufacturing Employees Predict Positive or Negative Outcomes? A Test of Competing Hypotheses

Karasek's job demands-control (JDC) model posits that job control can buffer against the harmful effects of demands experienced by employees. A large volume of JDC research has obtained support for the main effects of demands and control, but not the interactive effects. Recent research on the challenge-hindrance stressors framework, however, found that work stressors may not always be deleterious, suggesting alternative hypotheses about the effects of demands and control. The present study therefore examined competing hypotheses concerning the effects of job demands on occupational health outcomes. Using a sample of 316 employees in a Chinese manufacturing company, we found that, consistent with the challenge-hindrance framework, production demands were challenge stressors associated with favourable outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction and psychological well-being). In addition, results showed that the interactive role of job control depended on the nature of outcome variables. Future recommendations and implications of findings are discussed.

Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity

Previous research has produced contradictory findings about the impact of challenge stressors on individual and team creativity. Based on the challenge–hindrance stressors framework (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), we argue that the effect of challenge stressors on creativity is moderated by regulatory focus. We hypothesize that while promotion focus strengthens a positive relationship between challenge stressors and creativity, prevention focus reinforces a negative relationship. Experimental data showed that high demands led to better results in a creative insight task for individuals with a strong trait promotion focus, and that high demands combined with an induced promotion focus led to better results across both creative generation and insight tasks. These results were replicated in a field R&D sample. Furthermore, we found that team promotion focus moderated the effect of challenge stressors on team creativity. The results offer both theoretical insights and suggest practical implications.