See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350389395

How do employees appraise challenge and hindrance stressors? Uncovering

the double-edged effect of conscientiousness

Article  in  Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · March 2021

DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000275

CITATIONS READS

3 1,064

4 authors:

Jie Ma Cong Liu

Jinan University (Guangzhou, China) Hofstra University
20 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   1,033 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yisheng Peng Xiaohong Violet Xu

George Washington University University of Texas at San Antonio
27 PUBLICATIONS   284 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   452 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Workplace Ostracism Project I View project

Understanding human behavior through attachment. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jie Ma on 26 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
How Do Employees Appraise Challenge and Hindrance Stressors?
Uncovering the Double-Edged Effect of Conscientiousness
Jie Ma, Cong Liu, Yisheng Peng, and Xiaohong Xu
Online First Publication, March 25, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000275

CITATION
Ma, J., Liu, C., Peng, Y., & Xu, X. (2021, March 25). How Do Employees Appraise Challenge and Hindrance Stressors?
Uncovering the Double-Edged Effect of Conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000275
 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
© 2021 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 1076-8998 https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000275

How Do Employees Appraise Challenge and Hindrance Stressors?

Uncovering the Double-Edged Effect of Conscientiousness
Jie Ma1, Cong Liu2, Yisheng Peng3, and Xiaohong Xu4
1
School of Management, Jinan University
2
Department of Psychology, Hofstra University
3
Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, George Washington University
4
Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The challenge–hindrance model deems primary appraisal the central mechanism underlying the effects
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of challenge and hindrance stressors on employee outcomes. However, the literature has reported
conflicting findings on the relationships between challenge/hindrance stressors and challenge/
hindrance appraisals. Drawing upon transactional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the current
study aims to address these conflicting findings by investigating the moderating effect of conscien-
tiousness on stressor–appraisal relationships. On this basis, we further demonstrate when challenge and
hindrance appraisals mediate the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on work motivation
(i.e., work engagement) and job strain (i.e., job-related anxiety). We conducted two substudies to
examine the research model at the between-person level (Study 1) and the within-person level (Study 2).
The results of both studies were highly convergent. Challenge stressors were more positively related to
both challenge and hindrance appraisals for employees high in conscientiousness. Hindrance stressors
were also more positively related to hindrance appraisal for employees high in conscientiousness.
By exacerbating the stressor–appraisal relationships, conscientiousness was found to strengthen the
indirect relationship of challenge stressors with work engagement via challenge appraisal and the
indirect relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors with job-related anxiety via hindrance
appraisal. We conclude that conscientiousness functions as a double-edged sword in the process of
making primary appraisals.

Keywords: challenge and hindrance stressors, primary appraisals, conscientiousness, work engagement,
job strain

The challenge–hindrance model (CHM; Cavanaugh et al., 2000)
distinguishes between challenge stressors (e.g., time pressure and
job complexity) and hindrance stressors (e.g., situational constraints
and role ambiguity). The CHM posits that although both types of
stressors increase job strain, challenge stressors can motivate em-
ployees and promote work outcomes, whereas hindrance stressors
are demotivating and detrimental to work outcomes (e.g., LePine
et al., 2005). However, the proposed differential effects of challenge
and hindrance stressors on work outcomes (e.g., motivation,
engagement, and job performance) have found mixed support in
empirical research, including meta-analyses (Abbas & Raja, 2018;
LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018; Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019).
Jie Ma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0477-7717
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (grant number: 72002090) and by the Project of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Chinese Ministry of Education (grant number:
20XJC630005).
An early version of this study on the mediating effect of appraisals was
presented at the 79th Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, 2019.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jie Ma,
School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China,
510630. Email: yonasma028@gmail.com
Scholars have thus called for “moving away from the CHM in favor
of a more appraisal-based approach” (Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019,
p. 949), considering that challenge and hindrance stressors may
differentially affect outcomes via primary appraisals, such as chal-
lenge appraisal and hindrance appraisal (LePine et al., 2016; Liu &
Li, 2018; Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019; O’Brien & Beehr, 2019).
The challenge–hindrance research has long acknowledged that
primary appraisals serve as the conceptual ground that differentiates
between challenge and hindrance stressors and as the central
mechanism linking stressors to outcomes (e.g., LePine et al.,
2016; Liu & Li, 2018; Prem et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2011).
However, the relationships between challenge/hindrance stressors
and challenge/hindrance appraisals are inconsistently theorized,
and the associated empirical results are conflicting. Prior research
has proposed that challenge/hindrance stressors are both positively
related to challenge and hindrance appraisals (Nelson & Simmons,
2003; Prem et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2011). Whereas some
studies reported a positive relationship between challenge stressors
and challenge appraisal (e.g., LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018;
Searle & Auton, 2015), others reported a null relationship (Rosen
et al., 2020). Additionally, past research found the challenge
stressor–hindrance appraisal relationship to be positive (Prem
et al., 2017), negative (Kim & Beehr, 2019), or null (LePine et al.,
2016). Similarly, the hindrance stressor–challenge appraisal rela-
tionship was also found to be positive (Webster et al., 2011),
negative (LePine et al., 2016), or null (Searle & Auton, 2015).
These conflicting findings make it unclear when employees appraise

1
 2 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU
challenge and hindrance stressors as challenging and hindering. This
not only lowers the ability of the appraisal approach to elucidate the
effects of those stressors, but also may calls into question the
theoretical validity of the distinction between challenge and hin-
drance stressors. It is thus imperative to address and reconcile the
conflicting findings.
To this end, we examine the moderating effect of conscientious-
ness on the relationships between challenge/hindrance stressors and
challenge/hindrance appraisals. The transactional theory holds that
how stressors are appraised depends on the characteristics of the
stressors and the individual (e.g., personality). Personality, in par-
ticular, determines the extent to which a stressor is personally
significant to an individual, which is the key to an individual’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
primary appraisals (Kilby et al., 2018; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Challenge and hindrance stressors are distinguished based on their
differential implications for personal growth and work goals
(LePine et al., 2005). As a personality trait, conscientiousness
orients an employee toward personal growth and work accomplish-
ment, thereby increasing the significance and perceived value of
these outcomes (Costa et al., 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1995). It is
thus theoretically justified to deem conscientiousness a meaningful
boundary condition for primary appraisals of challenge and hin-
drance stressors. In practical terms, conscientiousness is more
frequently included as a criterion in personnel selection than other
personality traits, such as emotional stability, neuroticism, or self-
efficacy (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Thus, considering the preva-
lence of the use of conscientiousness in personnel selection, exam-
ining the effect of conscientiousness on employee appraisals of job
stressors could more broadly impact the human resource practices
than focusing on other personality traits that are less frequently
included as criteria. In addition, we further examine whether, by
affecting stressor–appraisal relationships, conscientiousness mod-
erates the indirect effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on
work motivation (i.e., work engagement) and job strain (i.e., job-
related anxiety) via challenge and hindrance appraisals. Finally, job
stressors can vary at the between- and within-person levels (Prem
et al., 2017; Sonnentag & Ilies, 2011). To strengthen the validity of
our research model, we conducted two studies to test the hypotheses
at both the between- and within-person levels.
Our research contributes to the literature by making the first
attempt to address the role of conscientiousness as a boundary
condition of the stressor–appraisal relationship. It thus helps
reconcile the conflicting findings regarding challenge/hindrance
stressor–challenge/hindrance appraisal relationships and furthers
our understanding of when primary appraisals mediate the effects
of challenge and hindrance stressors on employee outcomes. Addi-
tionally, we respond to the call for further knowledge of individual
differences in primary appraisals of challenge and hindrance stres-
sors (González-Morales & Neves, 2015; O’Brien & Beehr, 2019).
On this basis, we address the concern that the CHM is incompatible
with a large body of research demonstrating the power of individual
differences on stress processes (Griffin & Clarke, 2010). By revealing
that challenge and hindrance appraisals are not inherent in challenge
and hindrance stressors, we further underscore the importance of
measuring the appraisals in the challenge–hindrance research, which
has long been debated in this literature (O’Brien & Beehr, 2019).
Finally, previous research has largely examined the relationships
among stressors, appraisals, and outcomes at the between-person
level (Liu & Li, 2018; LePine et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2011).
However, most psychological theories, including transactional the-
ory, propose within-person relationships (e.g., Curran & Bauer,
2011; Voelkle et al., 2014; Wang & Maxwell, 2015). For instance,
Curran and Bauer (2011) lamented, “Despite the fact that the majority
of psychological theories posit within-person processes, the research
conducted to empirically evaluate these theories often involves the
collection and analysis of strictly between-person data” (p. 584).
Therefore, we contribute to the literature by examining the relation-
ships among stressors, appraisals, and outcomes at the within-person
and between-person levels and by providing robust testing of con-
scientiousness as a boundary condition for both the within- and
between-person variations in stressor–appraisal relationships using
a rigorous methodology (e.g., a time-lagged design and a daily diary
design).
Challenge Stressors, Hindrance Stressors, and Primary
Appraisals
Transactional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) considers pri-
mary appraisals as the central mechanism linking stressors to stress
outcomes. Primary appraisals refer to an individual’s evaluation of
the implications of a stressor for his/her valued goals and usually
involve challenge appraisal and hindrance appraisal (LePine et al.,
2016; Webster et al., 2011). Challenge appraisal is the anticipation
that the stressor will facilitate one’s valued goals, such as work
accomplishment or personal development, whereas hindrance ap-
praisal is the anticipation that the stressor will thwart these valued
goals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; LePine et al., 2016; Webster
et al., 2011). In other words, challenge appraisal is concerned with
future gains, whereas hindrance appraisal is concerned with future
losses (O’Brien & Beehr, 2019). Consequently, primary appraisals
shape an individual’s subsequent reactions to stressors (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
Early research on the CHM followed the premise of primary
appraisals and employed a priori-categorization approach in
making the distinction between challenge and hindrance stressors.
Specifically, this approach relies on subject matter experts’ judg-
ments of the implications of a given stressor for personal gain and
work accomplishment (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al.,
2005). Accordingly, challenge stressors are job stressors judged
to facilitate personal growth and work accomplishment, and
hindrance stressors are those judged to constrain these outcomes
(Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005). The studies em-
ploying this priori-categorization approach implied that challenge
stressors are uniformly appraised as challenging and hindrance
stressors are uniformly appraised as hindering; thus, these stres-
sors are differentially related to work outcomes (e.g., motivation,
attitudes, and job performance) (LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff
et al., 2007). Although intuitive, those studies did not explicitly
assess employees’ own appraisals and failed to acknowledge that
a stressor may be appraised as both challenging and hindering
(Webster et al., 2011).
To address the limitations of the priori-categorization approach, a
growing number of studies have explicitly measured employees’
primary appraisals and hypothesized that both challenge and
hindrance stressors are related to challenge appraisal as well as
hindrance appraisal (e.g., Prem et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2011).
This theoretical position is consistent with the transactional theory,
which suggests that challenge and hindrance appraisals are not
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
mutually exclusive (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Unfortunately,
research has generated conflicting findings regarding these relation-
ships, reaching equivocal conclusions on how employees actually
appraise challenge and hindrance stressors (e.g., Kim & Beehr, 2019;
LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018; Prem et al., 2017; Rosen et al.,
2020; Searle & Auton, 2015; Tuckey et al., 2015).
We assert that overlooking the impact of personality on primary
appraisals of stressors is a key reason for these conflicting findings
(Kilby et al., 2018; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Penley & Tomaka,
2002). Personality predisposes an individual to certain goals, values,
and preferences such that differences in personality can prompt
individuals to value different things and to attach different values to
the same thing (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). According to transac-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tional theory, personality determines what is at stake to an individual
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
in a stressful situation and in turn affects whether and to what extent
a stressor is appraised as promoting (i.e., challenge appraisal) or
thwarting (i.e., hindrance appraisal) something valuable to oneself
(Kilby et al., 2018; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Likewise, research
indicates that personality represents an individual’s dispositional
cognitive schema for constructing the subjective meanings of a
stressor (Kilby et al., 2018). Differences in personality may thus
render a stressor more challenging or hindering to some individuals
than to others, leading to interindividual variations in stressor–
appraisal relationships (Mitchell et al., 2019).
Challenge and hindrance stressors are distinguished based on
their opposite potential with respect to personal growth, task
completion, and work accomplishment (LePine et al., 2005). We
argue that the subjective value and significance of these outcomes—
the content of primary appraisals—depends upon the level of an
employee’s conscientiousness. As a personality trait, conscientious-
ness involves the disposition to be achievement-oriented, depend-
able, organized, and self-disciplined (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
These dispositions translate into achievement striving (e.g., chasing
growth and accomplishment) and dependability (e.g., focusing on
completing work tasks and fulfilling responsibilities) (Costa et al.,
1991; Hough, 1992; Judge et al., 2002; Moon, 2001; Mount &
Barrick, 1995). Compared to those low in conscientiousness, em-
ployees high in conscientiousness value personal growth, job
responsibility and work accomplishment to a greater extent
(Abbas & Raja, 2018; Lin et al., 2015). Therefore, employees
with different levels of conscientiousness should appraise challenge
and hindrance stressors differently.
The Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the
Stressor–Appraisal Relationships
Challenge stressors allow employees to tap into their potential
(Kim & Beehr, 2019). Addressing challenge stressors can improve
work competency and advance work accomplishment, serving
as opportunities to progress in one’s work. For this reason, chal-
lenge stressors are suggested to be positively related to challenge
appraisal (LePine et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2011). The transac-
tional theory suggests that an individual is more likely to make
challenge appraisal when the stressor can promote something of
high value to the individual (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Employ-
ees high in conscientiousness attach greater importance to personal
growth and work success than those low in conscientiousness
(Costa et al., 1991; Liu et al., 2013). For employees high in
conscientiousness, challenge stressors are beneficial to what they
3
value the most at work and compatible with their desired goals.
Given this, employees high in conscientiousness should be more
likely to appraise challenge stressors as challenging. In contrast,
employees low in conscientiousness care less about personal
growth or work success, and challenge stressors are less valuable
and rewarding to them. They are thus less likely to make challenge
appraisal.
Hypothesis 1a: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship
between challenge stressors and challenge appraisal such that
the relationship is more positive for employees high in consci-
entiousness.
In contrast, hindrance stressors, such as red tape and situational
constraints, are devoid of opportunities for personal gains and
accomplishment (LePine et al., 2005). Coping with hindrance
stressors allows an employee to lessen interference in work tasks
at best and does not foster growth and greater success (Dawson
et al., 2016; LePine et al., 2005; Tuckey et al., 2015). Higher
levels of hindrance stressors thus indicate fewer possibilities for
growth and success, leading to a negative relationship between
hindrance stressors and challenge appraisal (LePine et al., 2016;
Searle & Auton, 2015). Employees high in conscientiousness are
oriented toward greater success and work accomplishment, mak-
ing them more sensitive and susceptible to reduced opportunities
for gaining these outcomes. For this reason, we can expect a
stronger negative relationship between hindrance stressors and
challenge appraisal for employees high in conscientiousness. In
contrast, employees low in conscientiousness attach less value to
achievement and growth and are less sensitive to reduced gain
potential. Given this, the relationship between hindrance stressors
and challenge appraisal should be weaker for employees low in
conscientiousness.
Hypothesis 1b: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship
between hindrance stressors and challenge appraisal such that
the relationship is more negative for employees high in con-
scientiousness.
Both challenge and hindrance stressors are suggested to relate
positively to hindrance appraisal (e.g., Prem et al., 2017; Searle &
Auton, 2015; Webster et al., 2011). Hindrance stressors primarily
bring employees’ goal pursuit to a standstill and hamper their
personal growth (LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018; Webster
et al., 2011). Although challenge stressors have the potential to lead
to greater achievement and personal gains, they still pose a risk to
these favorable outcomes because employees might not be able to
successfully achieve the results (Rodell & Judge, 2009). Challenge
stressors also call for higher levels of effort expenditure and
investment of personal resources, rendering employees less able
to handle work demands in other important areas (Kim & Beehr,
2019; Prem et al., 2017). For example, high levels of time pressure
might prompt employees to speed up work to meet a deadline at the
cost of work quality. Transactional theory indicates that an individ-
ual is more likely to appraise a stressor as hindering when it thwarts
something important and valuable to oneself (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). The hindering potential of challenge and hindrance stressors
should be more salient and frustrating to employees high in
 4 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU
conscientiousness because it obstructs their path to achievement
and fulfilling job responsibilities (Lin et al., 2015; Liu et al.,
2013). Research also suggests that employees high in conscien-
tiousness are more vulnerable to risks to or constraints on work
goals and are more sensitive to potential threats to task comple-
tion (Boyce et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2015). Thus, employees high
in conscientiousness are more likely to make hindrance appraisal
of both challenge and hindrance stressors. In contrast, those low
in conscientiousness emphasize growth and accomplishment to a
lesser extent (Abbas & Raja, 2018; Lin et al., 2015; Liu et al.,
2013) and are apt to detach their attention from job stressors
(Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). The hindering aspect of challenge
and hindrance stressors thus becomes less salient and significant
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to them, which makes them less likely to make hindrance
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
appraisal.
Hypothesis 1c and 1d: Conscientiousness moderates the rela-
tionship between challenge stressors and hindrance appraisal
(c) and the relationship between hindrance stressors and hin-
drance appraisal (d) such that the relationships are more positive
for employees high in conscientiousness.
Primary Appraisals and Stress Outcomes
The transactional theory holds that primary appraisals stimulate
subsequent psychological and behavioral reactions to stressors
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Recent studies have found distinct
effects of challenge and hindrance appraisals on stress outcomes.
Specifically, challenge appraisal was found to elicit positive stress
outcomes, including a sense of learning (Prem et al., 2017),
intrinsic motivation (Parker et al., 2019), and problem-focused
coping (Searle & Auton, 2015). Then, hindrance appraisal was
found to elicit negative stress outcomes such as burnout (Li et al.,
2020), anger (Searle & Auton, 2015), and fatigue (Tuckey et al.,
2015). The findings are in line with the physiological underpin-
nings of challenge and hindrance appraisals: Challenge appraisal
activates the sympathetic adrenal medullary axis, which serves as
the energy mobilization system, whereas hindrance appraisal
activates the pituitary-adrenal cortical axis, which acts as the
distress system (Turner et al., 2012). In short, challenge and
hindrance appraisals are responsible for distinct types of stress
outcomes.
We propose that challenge appraisal should be positively related
to work engagement, an affective-motivational state characterized
by vigor (i.e., feeling energetic), dedication (i.e., being enthusiastic
and proud of one’s work), and absorption (i.e., being highly
engrossed in one’s work) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The transac-
tional theory maintains that challenge appraisal is indicative of a
positive stress transaction between an individual and a situation and
thus can heighten the individual’s morale and enthusiasm for coping
(Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Similarly, because
challenge appraisal reflects employees’ anticipation of future
resource gains (e.g., work accomplishment) (Dawson et al., 2016),
it can prompt them to be engaged in their work for the sake of
accelerating resource gains. Indeed, research has reported a positive
relationship of challenge appraisal with motivation to work, task
persistence, vitality, and proactivity (Liu & Li, 2018; Ohly & Fritz,
2010; Van den Broeck et al., 2010).
Hypothesis 2a: Challenge appraisal is positively related to work
engagement.
On the other hand, hindrance appraisal should be positively
related to job-related anxiety, which is a common psychological
strain experienced at work (Nelson & Simmons, 2003). It repre-
sents the degree to which an employee feels anxious, worried, and
tense about work (Warr, 1990). It often stems from worry about
possible failure or a sense of uncertainty about attaining work
goals (Lazarus, 1991; Rodell & Judge, 2009; Webster et al.,
2011). Hindrance appraisal indicates that the current situation
is going to block one’s work goals and personal development, and
future resource losses are possible. Such anticipation can burden
an employee psychologically and lead to job-related anxiety. The
extant literature has documented the positive association between
hindrance appraisal and various types of job strain (e.g., anger,
emotional exhaustion, and physical symptoms) (Searle & Auton,
2015; Tuckey et al., 2015; Webster et al., 2011), including anxi-
ety (Mawritz et al., 2014). We thus propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2b: Hindrance appraisal is positively related to job-
related anxiety.
The Moderated Mediating Effects
Considering the aforementioned arguments together, we sug-
gest that challenge stressors can indirectly facilitate work engage-
ment by eliciting employees’ challenge appraisal, while
hindrance stressors can indirectly undermine work engagement
by reducing employees’ challenge appraisal. For this reason,
challenge appraisal should act as the central mechanism of the
differential effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on work
engagement. Nevertheless, we argue that this mediating effect of
challenge appraisal is stronger or more evident for employees
high in conscientiousness. Challenge stressors should be more
positively related to challenge appraisal for employees high in
conscientiousness. This stronger propensity should in turn make
these employees more engaged. In contrast, hindrance stressors
should be more negatively related to challenge appraisal for
employees high in conscientiousness, which should make them
less engaged.
Hypotheses 3a and 3b: Conscientiousness moderates the indi-
rect relationships of challenge (a) and hindrance (b) with work
engagement via challenge appraisal such that the relationships
are stronger for employees high in conscientiousness.
Both challenge and hindrance stressors can indirectly increase job-
related anxiety by eliciting hindrance appraisal. Hindrance appraisal
thus functions as the central mechanism transmitting the effects of
both types of stressors on job-related anxiety. Employees high in
conscientiousness are more likely to make hindrance appraisal of
challenge and hindrance stressors. This stronger propensity should
make such employees more vulnerable to job-related anxiety. Given
this, we argue that conscientiousness should intensify the mediating
effect of hindrance appraisal on the relationships of challenge and
hindrance stressors with job-related anxiety. The theoretical model of
the study is presented in Figure 1.
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Hypotheses 3c and 3d: Conscientiousness moderates the indi-
rect relationships of challenge (c) and hindrance stressors
(d) with job-related anxiety via hindrance appraisal such that
the relationships are stronger for employees high in conscien-
tiousness.
Study 1: Method
Participants and Procedure
We recruited the participants from a large commercial bank in
China. To reduce common method variance and to establish a
temporal order between the study variables, we used web-based
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
surveys to collect data in two phases, 4 weeks apart. Data on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
challenge and hindrance stressors, challenge and hindrance apprai-
sals, conscientiousness, and basic demographic information were
collected at Time 1. Data on work engagement and job-related
anxiety were collected at Time 2. As suggested by Dawson et al.
(2016), the 4-week interval enables researchers to investigate the
effects of job demands on job strains while reducing potential
confounds due to the variability in the work environment. Employ-
ees received approximately $0.75 for completing the Time 1 survey
and approximately $1.50 for completing the Time 2 survey. Those
who completed both surveys were eligible to win four gift cards
($15–$75) in a lottery. The data collection was conducted in
compliance with the APA ethical guidelines and was approved
by the affiliated institute of the first author.
We emailed 450 employees at Time 1 and received responses
from 322 employees (71%), 288 of whom completed the Time 2
survey (63%). In the final sample, 52% of respondents were male,
86% had a bachelor’s degree and above, and the average age
and job tenure (in years) were 34.18 (SD = 9.45) and 6.01
(SD = 5.52), respectively. Regarding job positions, 30% of re-
spondents were bank clerks, 18.4% were customer managers,
11.2% were product/financial advisors, 9.9% were loan and
mortgage specialists, 9.9% were accountants, 8.9% were opera-
tional specialists, 6.9% were support/operational/HR personnel,
3.6% were marketing staff, and 1.3% were senior managers/
executives.
Figure 1
Theoretical Model
5
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, respondents rated their level of agree-
ment with each scale item based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The original scales were in
English and were translated into Chinese using back-translation
methods by two graduate students who were fluent in both English
and Chinese (Brislin, 1970).
Challenge and hindrance stressors were assessed using a modified
version of Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) 11-item scale (Webster et al.,
2010). Challenge stressors were assessed with six items (e.g.,
“I have a considerable number of projects and assignments to
accomplish”) (α = .80), and hindrance stressors were assessed
with five items (e.g., “It is not clear to me what is expected of
me on the job”) (α = .78).
Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals
In the challenge–hindrance literature, there is no consensus on the
best way to measure primary appraisals. Some studies measure
employees’ challenge and hindrance appraisals of every single
stressor separately (e.g., Liu & Li, 2018; Webster et al., 2011),
while others follow a global approach to measuring challenge and
hindrance appraisals of job stressors in general using a multi-item
scale (e.g., LePine et al., 2016; Prem et al., 2017; Tuckey et al.,
2015). We choose the latter approach in the present study. First, a
job demand does not exist in isolation but within a constellation of
multiple demands (Van Woerkom et al., 2016). Accordingly, an
employee’s appraisals of a stressor are not in isolation from other
stressors. For example, an employee’s appraisals of job complexity
with a low level of time pressure can be different from his/her
appraisals of job complexity with a high level of time pressure.
Thus, measuring employees’ challenge and hindrance appraisals of
job demands in general seems to be more informative than measur-
ing their appraisals of each job demand separately. Second, asses-
sing appraisals of every single stressor separately increases the
length of a survey, especially when assessing challenge and hin-
drance stressors- a higher-order categorization of various job stres-
sors. Long surveys tend to burden participants, posing a threat to
 6 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU

response quality. In this study, we used LePine et al.’s (2016)
instrument to measure challenge (e.g., “In general, I feel that my job
promotes my personal accomplishment”) (α = .80) and hindrance
(e.g., “In general, I feel that my job hinders my personal accom-
plishment”) (α = .81) appraisals with three items each.
fit index (CFI) = .91, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.05, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) = .06]. The model fit was better than that of the five-factor
model (a) [Δχ2 (11) = 836.45, p < .001] and that of the alternative
five-factor model (b) [Δχ2 (11) = 449.75, p < .001].

Conscientiousness
Testing the Hypotheses
Conscientiousness was assessed with the nine-item scale of the
Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) (e.g., “I am someone The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations
who perseveres until the task is finished”) (α = .82). among the variables are presented in Table 1. To test the hypothe-
ses, we followed the path analytical procedures outlined by Preacher
et al. (2007) and estimated all path parameters simultaneously with
Work Engagement
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Mplus 7.2. The predictors (i.e., challenge and hindrance stressors,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Work engagement was assessed with the nine-item Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) (e.g., “I am immersed in
my work”) (α = .88). The scale assesses three factors of work
engagement, and a composite score based on dedication, vitality,
and absorption is used to indicate overall work engagement.
Job-Related Anxiety
Job-related anxiety was assessed with the three-item job-related
anxiety scale by Warr (1990) (α = .83). Employees evaluated the
extent to which their job had made them feel anxious, tense and
worried in the past month on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (all
of the time).
Study 1: Results and Discussion
Evidence for Discriminant Validity
We performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)
to test the hypothesized seven-factor model. We compared the
model with two alternative models: A five-factor model (a) in
which the items for challenge stressors and hindrance stressors
were combined into one factor and the items for challenge and
hindrance appraisals were combined into another factor and
another five-factor model (b) in which the items for challenge
stressors and challenge appraisal were combined into one factor
and the items for hindrance stressors and hindrance appraisals
were combined in another factor. The proposed seven-factor
model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data [χ2 (641) =
1,043.78, p < .001, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .91, comparative
conscientiousness) were grand-mean centered prior to analysis. Two
unhypothesized cross-linked paths (i.e., the path between challenge
appraisal and job-related anxiety and that between hindrance ap-
praisal and work engagement) were examined and controlled. We
estimated the indirect effect using the bootstrapping method.
Table 2 presents the results.
Consistent with our prediction, conscientiousness significantly
moderated the challenge stressor–challenge appraisal relationship
(b = .24, p = .01). We plot this moderating effect in Figure 2a.
Simple slope analysis revealed that challenge stressors were more
positively related to challenge appraisal for employees high in
conscientiousness (+1SD) (b = .38, p < .001) than for those low
in conscientiousness (−1SD) (b = .12, p = .17). Hypothesis 1a was
supported. Contrary to our prediction, conscientiousness failed to
moderate the hindrance stressor–challenge appraisal relationship
(b = −.13, p = .09). Hypothesis 1b was therefore not supported.
We further found that conscientiousness significantly moderated
the challenge stressor–hindrance appraisal relationship (b = .29,
p = .03) such that the relationship was more positive for employees
high in conscientiousness (b = .31, p = .001) than for those low in
conscientiousness (b = .01, p = .90) (Figure 2b). Finally, conscien-
tiousness significantly moderated the hindrance stressor–hindrance
appraisal relationship (b = .21, p = .04) such that the relationship
was more positive for employees high in conscientiousness
(b = .57, p < .001) than for those low in conscientiousness
(b = .34, p < .001) (Figure 2c). Hypotheses 1c and 1d were there-
fore supported.
In accordance with our propositions, we found that chal-
lenge appraisal was positively related to work engagement

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations for Variables in Study 1

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 33.68 9.60 —

2. Job tenure 6.09 5.62 .57 —
3. Challenge stressors 3.69 .54 −.09 −.09 (.80)
4. Hindrance stressors 2.52 .69 −.10 −.14* .07 (.78)
5. Challenge appraisal 3.84 .53 −.05 −.07 .28** −.28** (.80)
6. Hindrance appraisal 2.24 .74 −.04 −.02 .16** .52** −.34** (.81)
7. Conscientiousness 4.05 .55 .29** .13* .13* −.53** .21** −.39** (.82)
8. Work engagement 4.02 .66 −.06 .04 .13* −.24** .36** −.16** .25** (.88)
9. Job-related anxiety 2.21 .92 −.17* −.03 .14* .44** −.16** .39** −.53** −.14** (.83)
Note. N = 288. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. Internal consistency reliabilities are in italic and appear on the diagonal within parentheses.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 7

Table 2
The Results of Path Estimates, Indirect Effects and Conditional Indirect Effects in Study 1

Mediator Outcome
Challenge appraisal Hindrance appraisal Work engagement Job-related anxiety
Predictor Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE)

Challenge stressors .25*** (.05) .15* (.07) .09 (.07) .16 (.09)
Hindrance stressors −.24*** (.05) .46*** (.07) −.17** (.06) .40*** (.08)
Conscientiousness .04 (.07) −.24** (.09)
Challenge stressors × Conscientiousness .24* (.07) .29* (.13)
Hindrance stressors × Conscientiousness −.13 (.08) .21* (.10)
Challenge appraisal (mediator) .31*** (.07) −.05 (.10)
Hindrance appraisal (mediator) −.01 (.06) .25** (.08)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Indirect Effect Estimate Boostrap 95% CI

Challenge stressors → challenge appraisal → work engagement
Low conscientiousness (−1SD) .04 [−.01, .11]
Medium conscientiousness .08 [.02, .15]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) .12 [.04, .22]
Difference (high vs. low conscientiousness) .08 [.02, .20]
Challenge stressors → hindrance appraisal → job-related anxiety
Low conscientiousness (−1SD) .002 [−.05, .07]
Medium conscientiousness .04 [.01, .10]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) .08 [.03, .17]
Difference (high vs. low conscientiousness) .08 [.01, .20]
Hindrance stressors → challenge appraisal → work engagement
Low conscientiousness (−1SD) −.05 [−.12, −.01]
Medium conscientiousness −.07 [−.14, −.03]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) −.09 [−.18, −.03]
Difference (high vs. low conscientiousness) −.04 [−.12, .001]
Hindrance stressors → hindrance appraisal → job-related anxiety
Low conscientiousness (−1SD) .08 [.03, .13]
Medium conscientiousness .11 [.03, .21]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) .14 [.04, .20]
Difference (high vs. low conscientiousness) .06 [.03, .17]
Note. N = 288. Bootstrapping sample = 10,000.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

(b = .31, p < .001), and hindrance appraisal was positively related
to job-related anxiety (b = .25, p = .002). Hypotheses 2a and 2b
were thus supported. The conditional indirect effects are summa-
rized in Table 2. The results showed that, with 10,000 bootstrapping
replications, conscientiousness significantly moderated the indirect
relationship between challenge stressors and work engagement via
challenge appraisal such that the indirect relationship was stronger
for employees high in conscientiousness (indirect effect [IE] = .12,
CI95% [.04, .22]) than for employees low in conscientiousness
(IE = .04, CI95% [−.01, .11]). Hypothesis 3a was therefore
supported. However, conscientiousness failed to moderate the
indirect relationship between hindrance stressors and work engage-
ment via challenge appraisal. Therefore, Hypothesis 3b was not
supported.
Additionally, conscientiousness significantly moderated the
indirect relationship between challenge stressors and job-related
anxiety via hindrance appraisal such that the indirect relationship
was stronger for employees high in conscientiousness (IE = .08,
CI95% [.03, .17]) than for employees low in conscientiousness
(IE = .002, CI95% [−.05, .07]). Similarly, conscientiousness sig-
nificantly moderated the indirect relationship between hindrance
stressors and job-related anxiety via hindrance appraisal such that
the indirect relationship was stronger for employees high in
conscientiousness (IE = .14, CI95% [.04, .20]) than for employees
low in conscientiousness (IE = .08, CI95% [.03, .13]). We thus
found support for Hypotheses 3c and 3d.
We conducted Study 1 to examine the moderating effects of
conscientiousness at the between-person level. The stress process
can also manifest as a within-person phenomenon that varies
from day to day for each employee, and these daily fluctuations
carry critical information about employees’ stress experiences
that cannot be obtained from between-person-level investiga-
tions (e.g., Prem et al., 2017; Sonnentag & Ilies, 2011). Addi-
tionally, a cognitive appraisal is a transient response that is
optimally measured in real-time. A more frequent and real-
time assessment of employee cognitive appraisal will strengthen
the validity of our theoretical model. In view of these limitations,
we used a daily diary design over five consecutive workdays in
Study 2.
Study 2: Method
Participants and Procedure
We recruited 145 employees from an architectural design con-
sulting firm located in northern China. With the help and approval of
the organization, we sent a study invitation letter, a statement
 8 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU
Figure 2
(a) The Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the Challenge
Stressor–Challenge Appraisal Relationship (Study 1), (b) The Moder-
ating Effect of Conscientiousness on the Challenge Stressor–Hindrance
Appraisal Relationship (Study 1), and (c) The Moderating Effect of
Conscientiousness on the Hindrance Stressor–Hindrance Appraisal
Relationship (Study 1)
(a)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(b)
(c)
describing the study purpose and the data confidentiality policy,
survey instructions, and a web link for a one-time general survey of
employees. A total of 143 employees completed the general survey,
which collected their basic demographic information and assessed
their conscientiousness. A week later, employees were asked to fill
out two surveys per day for 5 consecutive days (i.e., Monday to
Friday). To establish temporal precedence from daily stressors/
appraisals to daily outcomes, we sent the first survey, which
assessed daily stressors and appraisals, at 12:00 p.m. and the second
survey, which assessed daily work engagement and job-related
anxiety, at 5:30 p.m. Employees were instructed to complete the
survey within 3 hr after each survey was sent. Although each survey
was available all day, we retained the data only from surveys
completed during the instructed time.
We used a personal identification code to link employees’ first
and second daily surveys. To ensure a sufficient amount of within-
person variance, we retained only the data from employees who
completed surveys for more than 2 days. Ultimately, we obtained
597 matched daily surveys from 132 employees. The data collection
was conducted following the APA ethical guidelines and was
approved by the affiliated institute of the first author. Among the
132 employees, 62% were architectural designers, 29% were archi-
tectural engineers, 10% were operational and support staff, 7% were
accounting and financial management personnel, and 2% were
senior executives. All respondents had a bachelor’s degree or above.
The average age and job tenure (in years) were 33.35 (SD = 8.72)
and 10.45 (SD = 9.59), respectively.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, respondents rated their level of agree-
ment with each scale item based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Similar back-translation
methods were followed to translate the original measures into
Chinese (Brislin, 1970).
Daily Challenge and Hindrance Stressors
Consistent with previous daily-level studies investigating chal-
lenge and hindrance stressors (Binnewies & Wörnlein, 2011; Prem
et al., 2017; Widmer et al., 2012), we assessed time pressure and
situational constraints as a daily challenge and hindrance stressors,
respectively. Daily time pressure was assessed with the three-item
scale developed by Ohly and Fritz (2010) (e.g., “Today, I need to
work faster than usual to get my work done”) (average α = .88).
Daily situational constraints were assessed with three items from the
situational constraint scale by Semmer (1984) (e.g., “Today, I had to
work with materials and information that were incomplete and
outdated”) (average α = .83).
Daily Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals, Work
Engagement, Job-Related Anxiety, and Conscientiousness
Daily challenge and hindrance appraisals, work engagement, job-
related anxiety, and conscientiousness were assessed with the same
measures used in Study 1. We modified the measures of daily
variables to reflect daily experiences (e.g., “Today, I am immersed
in my work”). The average Cronbach’s alpha of each scale is
presented in Table 3.
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 9

appraisal was positively related to daily job-related anxiety

Analytical Strategy
The daily data were nested within each person. To justify the use of
multilevel modeling, we calculated the Intraclass Correlation Coeffi-
cient(1) and the percentage of within-person variance for each daily
variable. As Table 3 shows, the percentage of within-person variance
over the total variance ranged from 34% to 56% for each daily variable,
suggesting the within-person variance was sufficient for each daily
variable. The use of multilevel modeling to test our hypotheses is thus
warranted. We tested all the hypotheses simultaneously in a two-level
path model with Mplus 7.2. As in Study 1, the unhypothesized cross-
linked paths (i.e., the path between challenge appraisal and job-related
anxiety and that between hindrance appraisal and work engagement)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(γ = .32, p < .001). Hypotheses 2a and 2b were thus supported.
The conditional indirect effects at the daily level are summarized in
Table 4. Using the Monte Carlo approach, we found that conscien-
tiousness significantly moderated the indirect relationship between
daily challenge stressors and daily work engagement via daily
challenge appraisal such that the indirect relationship was stronger
for employees high in conscientiousness (IE = .12, CI95% [.07, .18])
than for employees low in conscientiousness (IE = .06, CI95% [.03,
.09]). Hypothesis 3a was therefore supported. However, conscien-
tiousness failed to moderate the indirect relationship between daily
hindrance stressors and daily work engagement via daily challenge
appraisal. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was not supported.

were controlled. We estimated the 95% confidence intervals of the Furthermore, conscientiousness significantly moderated the indi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

indirect and conditional indirect effects using the Monte Carlo approach
with the RMediation package.
Study 2: Results and Discussion
By adding two cross-level interaction terms to the model, we
found that conscientiousness significantly moderated the daily
challenge stressor–daily challenge appraisal relationship (γ = .25,
p = .02) such that the relationship was more positive for employees
high in conscientiousness (γ = .42, p < .001) than for those low in
conscientiousness (γ = .21, p < .001) (Figure 3a). However, we
failed to find a significant moderating effect of conscientiousness on
the daily hindrance stressor–daily challenge appraisal relationship
(γ = −.18, p = .06). Furthermore, conscientiousness significantly
moderated the daily challenge stressor–daily hindrance appraisal
relationship (γ = .28, p = .01) such that the relationship was more
positive for employees high in conscientiousness (γ = .22,
p < .001) than for those low in conscientiousness (γ = −.02,
p = .92) (Figure 3b). Finally, conscientiousness significantly mod-
erated the daily hindrance stressor–daily hindrance appraisal rela-
tionship (γ = .21, p = .01) such that the relationship was more
positive for employees high in conscientiousness (γ = .23,
p < .001) than for those low in conscientiousness (γ = .05,
p = .26) (Figure 3c). Together, these findings supported Hypothe-
ses 1a, 1b, and 1d, but not 1c.
Consistent with the results of Study 1, the results of Study 2
demonstrated that daily challenge appraisal was positively related to
daily work engagement (γ = .28, p < .001) and that hindrance
rect relationship between daily challenge stressors and daily job-
related anxiety via daily hindrance appraisal such that the indirect
relationship was stronger for employees high in conscientiousness
(IE = .07, CI95% [.02, .13]) than for employees low in conscien-
tiousness (IE = −.01, CI95% [−.05, .03]). Finally, conscientiousness
significantly moderated the indirect relationship between daily
hindrance stressors and daily job-related anxiety via daily hindrance
appraisal such that the indirect relationship was stronger for employ-
ees high in conscientiousness (IE = .07, CI95% [.03, .13]) than for
employees low in conscientiousness (IE = .02, CI95% [−.02, .06]).
Hypotheses 3c and 3d were therefore fully supported at the within-
person level.
By using the experience sampling method (ESM) in a daily diary
design, we replicated the findings of Study 1 at the daily level and
examined how conscientiousness affects employees’ daily stress
processes. The between-level (Study 1) and within-level (Study 2)
analyses were highly convergent, which provides a solid support for
the moderating effect of conscientiousness and the mediating effect
of challenge and hindrance appraisals.
General Discussion
We conducted two substudies to examine the moderating
effects of conscientiousness on stressor–appraisal relationships.
At both the between-person and within-person levels, conscien-
tiousness strengthened the challenge stressor–challenge appraisal,
the challenge stressor–hindrance appraisal, and the hindrance
stressor–hindrance appraisal relationships. We also found that by

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations for Variables in Study 2

Variables M SD ICC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 33.35 8.72 — —

2. Job tenure 10.45 9.59 — .97 —
3. Daily challenge stressors 3.56 .79 .44 −.10* −.10* (.88)
4. Daily hindrance stressors 2.96 .88 .51 .04 .01 .26** (.83)
5. Daily challenge appraisal 3.55 .67 .49 .09* −.08 .49** .01 (.83)
6. Daily hindrance appraisal 2.75 .70 .54 .03 .03 .21** .43** .18** (.75)
7. Conscientiousness 4.05 .43 — .13** .16** .21** −.09* .21** −.06 (.77)
8. Daily work engagement 3.73 .44 .66 .08* .10* .47** .01 .51** .01 .27** (.85)
9. Daily job-related anxiety 2.03 .99 .65 .06 .03 .19** .33** .04 .53** −.03 −.03 (.91)
Note. Nbetween = 132. Nwithin = 597. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. Average internal consistency reliabilities across five days are in italic and appear
on the diagonal within parentheses.
* p < .05. * p < .01.
 10 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU
Figure 3
(a) The Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the Daily Chal-
lenge Stressor–Daily Challenge Appraisal Relationship (Study 2), (b)
The Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the Daily Challenge
Stressor–Daily Hindrance Appraisal Relationship (Study 2), and (c)
The Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the Daily Hindrance
Stressor–Daily Hindrance Appraisal Relationship (Study 2)
(a)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(b)
(c)
exacerbating the aforementioned stressor–appraisal relationships,
conscientiousness strengthened the mediating effect of challenge
appraisal on the relationship of challenge stressors with work
engagement and the mediating effect of hindrance appraisal on
the relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors with job-
related anxiety.
Theoretical Implications
The present study found conscientiousness to be an important
boundary condition for primary appraisals of challenge and hin-
drance stressors. This helps reconcile the conflicting findings on
the relationships between challenge/hindrance stressors and chal-
lenge/hindrance appraisals. It has been suggested that challenge
stressors elicit challenge appraisal (LePine et al., 2005). However,
this relationship has been inconsistent (e.g., Rosen et al., 2020;
Webster et al., 2011). We posit that the potential for personal
growth and work accomplishment does not necessarily lead to a
positive relationship with challenge appraisal because some em-
ployees may attach less value to these outcomes. Supporting our
proposition, the results show that at both levels, challenge stres-
sors were more positively related to challenge appraisal for
employees high in conscientiousness, as these employees are
more achievement striving. The relationship was weaker for
employees low in conscientiousness, who attach less value to
growth and accomplishment. Conscientiousness is thus the key to
affecting the extent to which an employee appraises challenge
stressors as challenging.
Past research has argued that both challenge and hindrance
stressors have a hindering potential to thwart task completion
and work goals (e.g., Prem et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2011).
The present study sheds light on when challenge and hindrance
stressors are more positively related to hindrance appraisal. Consis-
tent with our prediction, at both the between- and within-person
levels, challenge stressors were more positively related to hindrance
appraisal for employees high in conscientiousness, as these employ-
ees care more about fulfilling obligations and responsibilities. For
employees low in conscientiousness, who care less about work
duties, challenge stressors were unrelated to hindrance appraisal.
Similarly, at both levels, hindrance stressors were more positively
related to hindrance appraisal for employees high in conscientious-
ness. We thus reconcile the conflicting findings on the challenge
stressor–hindrance appraisal relationship (Kim & Beehr, 2019;
LePine et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2011) and provide further insight
into the personal contingencies for the hindrance stressor–hindrance
appraisal relationship (LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018).
It is worth noting that conscientiousness had a negative main
effect on hindrance appraisal. That is, employees high in conscien-
tiousness had, on average, lower levels of hindrance appraisal than
those low in conscientiousness, especially for low to medium levels
of challenge and hindrance stressors.1 Nevertheless, in accordance
with our reasoning, conscientiousness exacerbated the challenge/
hindrance stressor–hindrance appraisal relationships. This finding is
consistent with our proposition that employees high in conscien-
tiousness are more vulnerable to the hindering aspect of challenge
and hindrance stressors, rendering their hindrance appraisal more
“responsive” to the level of those stressors. In contrast, although
1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 11

Table 4
The Results of Two-Level Path Estimates, Indirect Effects and Conditional Indirect Effects in Study 2

Mediator Outcome
Challenge appraisal Hindrance appraisal Work engagement Job-related anxiety
Predictor Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE)

Challenge stressors .31*** (.04) .10* (.04) .20*** (.04) .09 (.06)
Hindrance stressors −.10* (.04) .14*** (.04) −.03 (.03) .12** (.04)
Conscientiousness .28* (.14) −.10 (.11)
Challenge stressors × Conscientiousness .25* (.10) .28* (.10)
Hindrance stressors × Conscientiousness −.18 (.10) .21* (.08)
Challenge appraisal (mediator) .28*** (.05) −.09 (.06)
Hindrance appraisal (mediator) −.07 (.04) .32** (.07)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Indirect effect Estimate Bayesian 95% CI

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Challenge stressors → challenge appraisal → work engagement

Conditioned indirect effect at low conscientiousness (−1SD) .06 [.03, .09]
Average indirect effect .09 [.05, .13]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) .12 [.07, .18]
Difference .06 [.01, .12]
Challenge stressors → hindrance appraisal → job-related anxiety
Conditioned indirect effect at low conscientiousness (−1SD) −.01 [−.05, .03]
Average indirect effect .03 [.004, .07]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) .07 [.02, .13]
Difference .08 [.02, .16]
Hindrance stressors → challenge appraisal → work engagement
Conditioned indirect effect at low conscientiousness (−1SD) −.01 [−.04, .02]
Average indirect effect −.03 [−.06, −.01]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) −.05 [−.09, −.01]
Difference −.04 [−.09, .001]
Hindrance stressors → hindrance appraisal → job-related anxiety
Conditioned indirect effect at low conscientiousness (−1SD) .02 [−.02, .06]
Average indirect effect .04 [.02, .08]
High conscientiousness (+1SD) .07 [.03, .13]
Difference .06 [.01, .11]
Note. Nbetween = 132, Nwithin = 597. The 95% CIs were calculated by Monte Carlo approach with 20,000 repetitions.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

employees low in conscientiousness have higher levels of hindrance
appraisal in general, their hindrance appraisal is less responsive to the
level of those stressors. The finding further highlights that primary
appraisals stem from the interaction between the characteristics of
stressors and the properties of individuals (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Thus, to clarify when challenge and hindrance stressors are
linked to challenge and hindrance appraisals, it is of great importance
to account for the impact of conscientiousness.
In contrast to our expectations, conscientiousness did not moderate
the negative relationship between hindrance stressors and challenge
appraisal. A possible explanation might be that employees high in
conscientiousness have a stronger sense of self-control in stressful
situations (Penley & Tomaka, 2002). According to Lazarus and
Folkman (1984), in some cases, maintaining one’s composure in
stressful situations may stimulate a sense of challenge. Although we
argued that employees high in conscientiousness are less likely than
those low in conscientiousness to make challenge appraisal when faced
with hindrance stressors, this effect may be neutralized by the stronger
sense of self-control associated with higher levels of conscientiousness.
Another explanation might be that the absence of potential for personal
growth and work accomplishment is too obvious to allow conscien-
tiousness to make a difference. In this case, regardless of whether an
employee is high or low in conscientiousness, this employee is less
likely to make challenge appraisal of hindrance stressors.
By responding to the call for further knowledge on individual
differences in primary appraisals of challenge and hindrance stressors
(O’Brien & Beehr, 2019), we contribute to an enhanced understanding of
why it is important to measure the appraisals directly in the
challenge–hindrance research. Some studies assumed that each type
of the stressors is appraised consistently as challenging versus hindering
by most employees (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005).
They thus have categorized challenge and hindrance stressors a priori and
overridden the necessity of assessing primary appraisals. Others, how-
ever, have underscored the importance of measuring primary appraisals
for the reason each stressor can be appraised as both challenging or
hindering to varying degrees (e.g., Webster et al., 2011). Despite the
different conclusions, both lines of research seem to view primary
appraisal as inherent in stressors. We agree with the necessity of
measuring primary appraisals, albeit from a different perspective. Our
findings indicate that primary appraisals are not inherent in the stressors
but influenced by employee conscientiousness. As being individual
specific, primary appraisals should be directly assessed in order to better
understand employees’ psychological experiences and predict their
subsequent reactions in response to challenge and hindrance stressors.
In contrast to the position that challenge and hindrance appraisals
have differential effects on a given outcome (Prem et al., 2017;
Webster et al., 2011), we found that they indeed influenced distinct
outcomes at both levels. In this study, challenge appraisal mainly
 12 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU

affected motivation (i.e., work engagement), whereas hindrance Practical Implications

appraisal mainly affected job strain (i.e., job-related anxiety).
We agree with Mazzola and Disselhorst’s (2019) recommenda-
This finding aligns with Tuckey et al. (2015), who reported that
tion that we should be cautious about increasing challenge stressors
job dedication was predicted only by challenge appraisal and fatigue
to motivate employees. Given our findings, challenge stressors are
only by hindrance appraisal. The results lend additional support to
more challenging and motivating to employees high in conscien-
the proposition that challenge and hindrance appraisals are not
tiousness. Managers should also be aware that these highly consci-
dichotomous but, rather, influence separate stress processes (Prem
entious employees are more likely to make hindrance appraisal and
et al., 2017; Searle & Auton, 2015). Given this, studies should not
are vulnerable to job strain. Organizations have been treating
link challenge stressors to only challenge appraisal and hindrance
conscientiousness as an important predictor in personnel selection
stressors only to hindrance appraisal (i.e., the single-appraisal
and tend to hire job candidates scoring high on this personality trait
approach) (LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018), because this approach
(Liu et al., 2013). The prevalence of the use of conscientiousness as
reveals only a part of the appraisal mechanism underlying the effects of
a selection criterion along with the growing level of challenge
a given stressor. To reach a stronger conclusion about how appraisals
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

stressors (e.g., workload, time pressure, and job complexity) in

operate to affect employee outcomes, we should link a stressor to both
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

modern organizations necessitates the implementation of stress

challenge and hindrance appraisals (i.e., the dual-appraisal approach).
As noted by Kilby et al. (2018), personality shapes an individual’s
“predispositional stressor appraisal mechanism that may help research-
ers to further explore interindividual differences in the stress response”
(p. 98). Studying conscientiousness as the boundary condition not
only enriches the knowledge of individual differences in primary
appraisals of challenge and hindrance stressors but also provides a
clear account of when primary appraisals operate to intervene in the
effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on employee outcomes. In
the face of challenge stressors, employees high in conscientiousness
are more likely to make challenge appraisal, which in turn makes them
more engaged in work than those low in conscientiousness. Challenge
appraisal is thus more likely to intervene in the positive effect of
challenge stressors on work engagement for employees high in
conscientiousness. For these employees, challenge and hindrance
stressors are more positively related to hindrance appraisal, so these
employees are more susceptible to job-related anxiety than their
counterparts low in conscientiousness. Given this, hindrance appraisal
is more likely to intervene in the positive effect of challenge and
hindrance stressors on job-related anxiety for employees high in
conscientiousness. We therefore contend that “moving away from
the CHM in favor of more appraisal-based approach” (Mazzola &
Disselhorst, 2019, p. 949) should involve integrating employee per-
sonality (e.g., conscientiousness) into the appraisal processes. This
would allow for more accurate predictions regarding how employees
react to challenge and hindrance stressors.
Finally, conscientiousness has been seen as a double-edged sword
in the context of challenge and hindrance stressors because it
exacerbates the positive effects of challenge stressors on job per-
formance (Lin et al., 2015) and the detrimental effects of challenge
and hindrance stressors on well-being (Abbas & Raja, 2018; Lin
et al., 2015). To explain why this is the case, past research has relied
on the resource allocation framework and argued that conscientious-
ness prompts employees to devote resources to better performance at
the cost of well-being (Abbas & Raja, 2018; Lin et al., 2015).
However, given the difficulty of measuring resource allocation, the
studies were unable to empirically test that mechanism. We dem-
onstrate that conscientiousness exerts the double-edged effect on
stressor–outcome relationships via primary appraisals. The conver-
gent findings at both levels strengthen our conclusion. Nonetheless,
there may be other mechanisms responsible for the double-edged
effect of conscientiousness, such as stress coping (Zhang et al.,
2019). We encourage future studies to delve further into this
question to enrich our understanding of why conscientiousness is
a double-edged sword in the context of job stressors.
management and health-promotion interventions in place, such as
relaxation exercises (Kaspereen, 2012), mindfulness-based stress
reduction programs (Shapiro et al., 2005), peer-support programs
(Peterson et al., 2008), and workplace wellness programs (Tetrick &
Winslow, 2015). Evidence from different industries and occupations
shows that these interventions can mitigate job stress and facilitate
employee recovery from stress (for a review, see Tetrick &
Winslow, 2015). Regardless of the level of conscientiousness,
employees can benefit from these interventions.
Organizations should also eliminate or at least reduce hindrance
stressors as much as possible. First, organizations should conduct a
comprehensive assessment to identify the occurrence of hindrance
stressors and the types and levels of these stressors that their
employees experience. Then, meetings should be held to examine
the causes of hindrance stressors, be they shortness of resources,
lack of goal clarity, or interpersonal clashes. Finally, management
teams should hold themselves accountable for developing and
implementing sound strategies to manage hindrance stressors.
For example, organizations could keep an eye out for unnecessary
paperwork and approvals and then restructure the layers of man-
agement to reduce red tape. Role differentiation and clarification can
be useful to address role ambiguity or conflict.
Limitations and Future Studies
We acknowledge a few limitations of the current study. First, this
study does not support a causal conclusion regarding the stressor–
appraisal–outcome relationship. Future studies are encouraged to
replicate our findings using an experimental design to identify
causal effects. Additionally, we used the global approach to measure
employees’ primary appraisals because this method can better
reduce survey constraints in field research. Nevertheless, it could
be helpful to use other measurement approaches for assessing
primary appraisals in lab studies to examine whether our findings
remain consistent across measurement approaches and research
settings. Furthermore, because our participants were mainly knowl-
edge workers, the conclusions of our study may be sample-specific.
Although the results of the current study were consistent with
theory and with empirical findings obtained from samples from
other industries (e.g., LePine et al., 2016; Searle & Auton, 2015),
it is helpful to replicate our study with more diversified samples
drawn from various industries, occupations, and organizations.
It would be interesting to investigate whether a given job
stressor (e.g., emotional demand) is a challenge in one occupation
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
(e.g., for emotional workers) but a hindrance in another (e.g., for
knowledge workers).
We focused exclusively on conscientiousness as a personal factor
affecting primary appraisals. However, we encourage future studies
to consider the effects of organization-level variables on employees’
primary appraisal of challenge stressors (e.g., LePine et al., 2016).
For example, organizational support for strength use (i.e., the extent
to which an organization supports employees in utilizing their
personal strengths to do their best work) (Van Woerkom et al.,
2016) may affect stressor–appraisal relationships. Organizational
support for strength use can serve as a powerful job resource that
strengthens employees’ control over job stressors, which may
increase challenge appraisal and the associated positive work out-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
comes (e.g., work motivation) and reduce hindrance appraisal and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the associated negative work outcomes (e.g., job strain). Addition-
ally, challenge stressors may seem less risky and devastating and
more valuable and meaningful in organizations with a culture of
“learning from” rather than assigning blame for failures (Madsen &
Desai, 2010). The former culture emphasizes the positive side of
challenge stressors, prompting employees to appraise challenge
stressors as more challenging and less hindering. It is also interesting
to study whether this kind of organizational culture can mitigate the
downside of conscientiousness found in this study.
Finally, we recommend that future studies explore other plausible
mechanisms underlying the differential or uniform effects of chal-
lenge and hindrance stressors on work outcomes. For instance,
employees’ state regulatory focus (i.e., self-regulation strategies
for achieving work goals) may mediate the effects of challenge
and hindrance stressors (Zhang et al., 2019). It is likely that
challenge stressors trigger both promotion focus (i.e., regulating
oneself to approach accomplishment) and prevention focus (i.e.,
regulating oneself to avoid risks/failures), which lead to certain
psychological and behavioral outcomes. Echoing this reasoning, in
their meta-analysis, Zhang et al. (2019) categorized coping beha-
viors into promotion-focused coping and prevention-focused coping
and concluded that these two coping strategies have differential
impacts on employee performance and well-being. It would be
interesting to integrate the perspectives of primary appraisal and
self-regulation to elaborate the whole-chain effect of challenge and
hindrance stressors.
References
Abbas, M., & Raja, U. (2018). Challenge-hindrance stressors and job
outcomes: The moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business
and Psychology. Advance online publication.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Binnewies, C., & Wörnlein, S. C. (2011). What makes a creative day? A
diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 589–607. https://doi.org/10
.1002/job.731
Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Ferguson, E. (2016). Individual differences in
loss aversion: Conscientiousness predicts how life satisfaction responds to
losses versus gains in income. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
42, 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216634060
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/
135910457000100301
13
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W.
(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US
managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for
agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality
Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and
between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review
of Psychology, 62, 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych
.093008.100356
Dawson, K. M., O’Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2016). The role of hindrance
stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress:
A proposed theory revision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37,
397–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2049
González-Morales, M. G., & Neves, P. (2015). When stressors make you
work: Mechanisms linking challenge stressors to performance. Work and
Stress, 29, 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1074628
Griffin, M. A., & Clarke, S. (2010). Stress and well-being at work. In S.
Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial & organizational psychology
(pp. 359–397). American Psychological Association.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The ‘Big Five’ personality variables—construct confu-
sion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.,
pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Kaspereen, D. (2012). Relaxation intervention for stress reduction among
teachers and staff. International Journal of Stress Management, 19,
238–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029195
Kilby, C. J., Sherman, K. A., & Wuthrich, V. (2018). Towards understanding
interindividual differences in stressor appraisals: A systematic review.
Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 92–100. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.paid.2018.07.001
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2019). Thriving on demand: Challenging work
results in employee flourishing through appraisals and resources. Interna-
tional Journal of Stress Management. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1037/str0000135
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory
of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.46.8.819
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
Springer.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test
of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation
for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005
.18803921
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning
their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal
and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1036–1059.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778
Li, P., Taris, T. W., & Peeters, M. C. (2020). Challenge and hindrance
appraisals of job demands: One man’s meat, another man’s poison?
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 33, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10615806.2019.1673133
Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2015). A double-edged sword: The
moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work
stressors, psychological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 36, 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1949
 14 MA, LIU, PENG, AND XU
Liu, C., & Li, H. (2018). Stressors and stressor appraisals: The moderating
effect of task efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 141–154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9483-4
Liu, C., Liu, Y., Mills, M. J., & Fan, J. (2013). Job stressors, job perfor-
mance, job dedication, and the moderating effect of conscientiousness: A
mixed-method approach. International Journal of Stress Management, 20,
336–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034841
Madsen, P. M., & Desai, V. (2010). Failing to learn? The effects of failure
and success on organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle
industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 451–476. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2010.51467631
Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceed-
ingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of
hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
35, 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1879
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Mazzola, J. J., & Disselhorst, R. (2019). Should we be “challenging”
employees?: A critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hin-
drance model of stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40, 949–961.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412
Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., & Keating,
D. J. (2019). Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance
pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 62, 531–552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0646
Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement
striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.535
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions:
Implications for research and practice in human resources management.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200.
Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress:
A more positive approach. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook
of occupational health psychology (pp. 97–119). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10474-005
O’Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2019). So far, so good: Up to now, the
challenge–hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate dis-
tinction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40, 962–972. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.2405
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristichallenge stressors, challenge
appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.633
Parker, S. L., Bell, K., Gagné, M., Carey, K., & Hilpert, T. (2019). Collateral
damage associated with performance-based pay: The role of stress ap-
praisals. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28,
691–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1634549
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five,
emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(01)00087-3
Peterson, U., Bergström, G., Samuelsson, M., Åsberg, M., & Nygren, Å.
(2008). Reflecting peer-support groups in the prevention of stress and
burnout: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63,
506–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04743.x
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential
challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes,
turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.92.2.438
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated
mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 42, 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on
challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as
antecedents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38,
108–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2115
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad”
behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and
hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1438–1451. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0016752
Rosen, C. C., Dimotakis, N., Cole, M. S., Taylor, S. G., Simon, L. S., Smith,
T. A., & Reina, C. S. (2020). When challenges hinder: An investigation of
when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 105, 1181–1206. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000483
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Indus-
trial. Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25,
293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of
work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of
85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and
hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28, 121–143. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.931378
Semmer, N. (1984). Streßbezogene Tätigkeitsanalyse [Stress-Oriented anal-
ysis task-analysis]. Beltz.
Shapiro, S. L., Astin, J. A., Bishop, S. R., & Cordova, M. (2005). Mindful-
ness-based stress reduction for health care professionals: Results from a
randomized trial. International Journal of Stress Management, 12,
164–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.164
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire:
Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and
unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,
204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
Sonnentag, S., & Ilies, R. (2011). Intra-individual processes linking
work and employee well-being: Introduction into the special issue. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 32, 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.757
Tetrick, L. E., & Winslow, C. J. (2015). Workplace stress management
interventions and health promotion. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 583–603. https://doi.org/10
.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111341
Tuckey, M. R., Searle, B., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield, H. R.
(2015). Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of
work stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 131–147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038280
Turner, M. J., Jones, M. V., Sheffield, D., & Cross, S. L. (2012). Cardio-
vascular indices of challenge and threat states predict competitive perfor-
mance. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 48–57. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.004
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M.
(2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and
job challenges in the Job Demands–Resources model. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 735–759. https://doi.org/10
.1080/13594320903223839
Van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job
demands and support for strength use: Fine-Tuning the job demands-
resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000033
Voelkle, M. C., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Lindenberger, U. (2014).
Toward a unified framework for the study of between-person and
within-person structures: Building a bridge between two research
paradigms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 193–213. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.889593
 STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Wang, L., & Maxwell, S. E. (2015). On disaggregating between-person and
within-person effects with longitudinal data using multilevel models.
Psychological Methods, 20, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000030
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental
health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better
understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work
behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 68–77. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.012
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-
hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011
.02.001
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
View publication stats
15
Widmer, P. S., Semmer, N. K., Kälin, W., Jacobshagen, N., & Meier,
L. L. (2012). The ambivalence of challenge stressors: Time pressure
associated with both negative and positive well-being. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011
.09.006
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Ng, T. W., & Lam, S. S. (2019). Promotion-And
prevention-focused coping: A meta-analytic examination of regulatory
strategies in the work stress process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104,
1296–1323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000404
Received May 18, 2019
Revision received October 25, 2020
Accepted December 18, 2020 ▪