The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work
Open accessAbstract
Summary: In the conceptualization of thriving at work, it is emphasized that employees' learning and vitality are two equally important components of thriving and that thriving is facilitated by contextual features and available resources. In this study, we examined the effects of two challenge stressors (time pressure and learning demands) on thriving at work. Based on the literature on challenge and hindrance stressors, we proposed that challenge stressors positively affect learning and negatively affect vitality. To uncover underlying mechanisms, we measured challenge appraisal and hindrance appraisal of work situations in a diary study. A sample of 124 knowledge workers responded to three daily surveys (before the lunch break, during the afternoon, and at the end of the workday) for a period of five workdays. Results indicate that the indirect effects of learning demands and time pressure on learning are mediated by challenge appraisal, whereas indirect effects of learning demands on vitality are mediated by hindrance appraisal. Overall, our study shows that challenge stressors have a positive total effect on learning but no total effect on vitality. These differential relationships call for a finer distinction between the two components of thriving at work in future research. Copyright © 2016 The Authors Journal of Organizational Behavior Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218 · Cited by 18,025
The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940710733115 · Cited by 12,996
On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 · Cited by 11,567
New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y · Cited by 4,980 · cited 1×
“For example, thriving and flourishing (e.g., Diener et al., 2010) share similarities, as they both involve positive states of human functioning.”
BackgroundFolkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150 · Cited by 4,845
A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0020141 · Cited by 3,796
Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678370802393649 · Cited by 2,496
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.18803921 · Cited by 2,438
An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 · Cited by 2,154 · cited 2×
“Studies based on the literature on challenge and hindrance stressors (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) have shown that certain so-called challenge stressors are positively related to motivation and performance (LePine et al., 2005), commitment (Podsakoff et al., 2007), and engagement (Crawford et al., 2010).”
Background
Cited by
Thriving at work: A meta‐analysis
Kleine, A., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2375 · Cited by 606
Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work
Walumbwa, F. O., Muchiri, M. K., Misati, E., Wu, C., & Meiliani, M. (2018) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2216 · Cited by 323
Examining the Impact of Algorithmic Control on Uber Drivers’ Technostress
Cram, W. A., Wiener, M., Tarafdar, M., & Benlian, A. (2022) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2022.2063556 · Cited by 246
Feeling interrupted—Being responsive: how online messages relate to affect at work
Sonnentag, S., Reinecke, L., Mata, J., & Vorderer, P. (2018) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2239 · Cited by 167
The risks of using ChatGPT to obtain common safety-related information and advice
Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Peden, A. E., Cole-Hunter, T., Costantini, A., Haghani, M., Rod, J. E., Kelly, S., Torkamaan, H., Tariq, A., David Albert Newton, J., et al. (2023) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106244 · Cited by 148
Metadata
- Authors
- Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-06-30
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 108-123
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2462057794
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 36.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
