The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Should we be “challenging” employees?: A critical review and meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress
Abstract
Summary: The challenge‐hindrance model of stress proposes that stressors can be divided into two distinct groups: those that challenge employees and those that hinder employees. This critical review seeks to explain the history of the model and its basic tenets, while succinctly summarizing the findings of existing studies based on the model. A thorough search of the stress literature uncovered 32 studies that specifically examined the relationship between challenge and hindrance stressors and important personal/organizational variables. Results were reviewed and analyzed, specifically by describing past meta‐analyses on the model, looking at the overall pattern of results from primary studies, and meta‐analyzing the relationships presented in those papers. This synthesis suggests that although there are some differential relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors with organizational variables (e.g., performance and engagement), the relationships to other key variables, such as counterproductive work behaviors, psychological strains, and physical health, are consistently negative for both challenge and hindrance stressors. Thus, we propose that stress research move away from the current challenge‐hindrance model in favor of other established models and/or a more appraisal‐based approach.
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
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
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438 · Cited by 1,948
A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects
GILBOA, S., SHIROM, A., FRIED, Y., & COOPER, C. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x · Cited by 1,072
Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response.
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031201 · Cited by 979
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIOR OF EMPLOYED MANAGERS
BRETZ, R. D., BOUDREAU, J. W., & JUDGE, T. A. (1994) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01725.x · Cited by 297
Cited by
Cheng, B., Lin, H., & Kong, Y. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113987 · Cited by 272
A review on health and well‐being at work: More than stressors and strains
Sonnentag, S., Tay, L., & Nesher Shoshan, H. (2023) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12572 · Cited by 212
Young, A. N., Bourke, A., Foley, S., & Di Blasi, Z. (2024) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288887 · Cited by 21
A reinforcement sensitivity theory view of seeking behaviors at work: A meta‐analysis
Sherf, E. N., Gilliam, N., & McElroy, T. (2024) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12579 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Mazzola, J. J., & Disselhorst, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-09-15
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 949-961
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2973899827
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 36.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.