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

net/publication/348521951

Challenging or Hindering? The Roles of Goal Orientation and Cognitive

Appraisal in Stressor‐Performance Relationships

Article  in  Journal of Organizational Behavior · January 2021

DOI: 10.1002/job.2503

CITATIONS READS

7 684

3 authors, including:

Jie Ma Yisheng Peng

Jinan University (Guangzhou, China) George Washington University
20 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

challenge and hindrance job stress View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jie Ma on 07 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 13 March 2019 Revised: 18 October 2020 Accepted: 6 January 2021
DOI: 10.1002/job.2503

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Challenging or hindering? The roles of goal orientation and

cognitive appraisal in stressor-performance relationships

Jie Ma1 | Yisheng Peng2 | Bo Wu3

1
School of Management, Jinan University,
Guangzhou, China
2
Department of Organizational Sciences and
Communication, George Washington
University, Washington, District of
Columbia, USA
3
School of Labor and Human Resources,
Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Correspondence
Jie (Yonas) Ma, Associate Professor, School of
Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou,
Guangdong, China, 510630.
Email: yonasma028@gmail.com
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Numbers: 72002090, 71802007;
Project of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Chinese Ministry of Education, Grant/Award
Number: 20XJC630005
Summary
Stress transactions are influenced by the properties of the stressful situation and
those of the individual. Much research has focused on the differential effects of
challenge and hindrance stressors on job performance, but few studies have explored
individual differences in the cognitive appraisal of stressors, which is the central com-
ponent of stress transactions. Therefore, the present study examined the moderating
effect of employee goal orientation (i.e., learning, performance prove, and perfor-
mance avoidance goal orientation) on stressor-appraisal relationships and tested
whether goal orientation further moderates the indirect relationships of stressors
with job performance via appraisals. We tested the hypothesized model at both
between- and within-person levels and obtained convergent results across two
studies with multisourced data. Goal orientation was found to be an important
boundary condition of the stressor-appraisal relationships. Specifically, the challenge
stressor-challenge appraisal relationship was strengthened by learning goal orienta-
tion and performance-prove goal orientation. The hindrance stressor-hindrance
appraisal relationship was strengthened by performance-prove goal orientation and
performance-avoidance goal orientation, but weakened by learning goal orientation.
On this basis, employee goal orientation also moderated indirect relationships
between stressors and task performance/work proactivity via appraisals. Theoretical
contributions and practical implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS
challenge and hindrance stressors, cognitive appraisal, goal orientation, job performance, job
stress

The challenge-hindrance model of job stress (CHM; Cavanaugh,
Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000) argues that stressors are diver-
gent in their implications for personal growth and work accomplish-
ment. According to the CHM, challenge stressors (e.g., job complexity)
are stressful demands with potential for employee development and
work accomplishment. In contrast, hindrance stressors (e.g., red tape)
are obstructive to personal growth and work goals and can undermine
work outcomes (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Lepine, Podsakoff, &
Lepine, 2005). Research has found the positive effects of challenge
stressors on job satisfaction (Cavanaugh et al., 2000), motivation
(e.g., Lepine et al., 2005), and job performance (e.g., Wallace, Edwards,
Arnold, Frazier, & Finch, 2009). However, such effects have not been
consistently supported (e.g., LePine, Zhang, Crawford, & Rich, 2016;
Liu & Li, 2018). A recent meta-analysis found only partial support for
the opposite effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on work
outcomes (Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019).
Another line of research notes that the opposite effects of
challenge and hindrance stressors may not be evident until
employees' appraisals are taken into account (Liu & Li, 2018). Drawing
upon the transactional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), researchers
have argued that employees' appraisals drive the effects of those
stressors (Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011). Specifically, the positive

J Organ Behav. 2021;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 MA ET AL.
effects of challenge stressors on work outcomes can be attributed to
employees' challenge appraisal, whereas hindrance appraisal inter-
venes in the negative effects of hindrance stressors. Supporting this
argument, studies have reported that only through challenge appraisal
can challenge stressors relate positively to motivation and task
performance (Liu & Li, 2018; Searle & Auton, 2015), and only through
hindrance appraisal can hindrance stressors relate negatively to the
outcomes (LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018). Challenge and
hindrance appraisals thus clarify the process underlying the effects of
challenge and hindrance stressors and improve the predictive validity
of the CHM. Echoing this reasoning, Mazzola and Disselhorst (2019)
have called for moving the CHM research toward a more appraisal-
based approach. However, our knowledge of appraisals is still
constrained in important aspects.
First, past research has not satisfactorily addressed personal con-
tingencies (i.e., individual differences) in the process of appraising
challenge and hindrance stressors. According to the transactional the-
ory, personal characteristics (e.g., goals, values, and beliefs) constitute
an important source of cognitive appraisal. These internal factors
gauge the personal significance and implications of encountered
stressors and form the motivational basis for cognitive appraisal
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). Ultimately,
individual differences in the appraisal process may alter the effects of
challenge and hindrance stressors. For both theoretical and practical
reasons, we deem it imperative to explore what personal characteris-
tics can systematically influence the process of appraising challenge
and hindrance stressors. Theoretically, this knowledge helps illuminate
how employees actually appraise challenge and hindrance stressors
and in turn enables more accurate prediction of their subsequent
reactions (Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019). Practically, understanding
employees' appraisal patterns enables managers to better identify
whom may flourish in encountering challenge stressors and whom
may be stymied by hindrance stressors. Such identification will allow
them to assign work demands as well as support and other resources
more wisely.
In this research, we examine the moderating effect of employee
goal orientation (i.e., learning, performance prove, and performance
avoid; VandeWalle, 1997) on the relationship between challenge
stressors and challenge appraisal and between hindrance stressors
and hindrance appraisal. As noted earlier, challenge and hindrance
stressors are differentiated based on their implications for personal
growth and work accomplishment. We choose to study goal
orientation because it affects whether and to what extent an
employee is oriented toward these outcomes (Payne, Youngcourt, &
Beaubien, 2007). It could serve as a frame-of-reference for appraising
the personal significance and implications of the stressors (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). By affecting the stressor-appraisal relationships, goal
orientation can alter the indirect relationships of challenge and
hindrance stressors with job performance.
Additionally, the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors
can manifest at between- and within-person levels (Sonnentag,
Binnewies, & Ohly, 2013). Between-person effects imply that
employees facing high levels of challenge (hindrance) stressors in
general may accordingly have high levels of challenge (hindrance)
appraisal accordingly (Gabriel et al., 2019). Within-person effects
underscore the fluctuations of stressors and indicate that an
employee may have a higher challenge (hindrance) appraisal on days
when challenge (hindrance) stressors are high than on days when chal-
lenge (hindrance) stressors are low (Sonnentag et al., 2013). The
effects at different levels reflect different aspects of stress experi-
ences and can differ in directions and magnitudes. Although few stud-
ies have investigated the effects of moderators (e.g., charismatic
leadership, LePine et al., 2016; task-efficacy, Liu & Li, 2018) on
employee appraisals, they conducted investigations only at a single
level. To draw firm conclusions and prevent isomorphic generaliza-
tions regarding the impact of goal orientation, we conduct two studies
to test the moderating effects of goal orientation at both levels.
This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we
advance the CHM research by elucidating the role of individual differ-
ences in employees' challenge (hindrance) appraisal of challenge
(hindrance) stressors, an important question that has not yet been
convincingly addressed. We suggest that at both between- and
within-person levels, challenge (hindrance) appraisal of challenge
(hindrance) stressors can vary depending upon employee goal orienta-
tion. This research goes beyond LePine et al.'s (LePine et al., 2016)
study, which failed to consider individual differences in the appraisal
process, and Liu and Li's (2018) study, which tested only one chal-
lenge and one hindrance stressor. Second, we answer the call to
explore the “missing components” in the CHM that blur the differen-
tial effects of challenge and hindrance stressors (Mazzola &
Disselhorst, 2019). By testing whether goal orientation moderates the
stressor-performance relationships via appraisals, we explicate when
and why challenge and hindrance stressors relate oppositely to work
outcomes. Finally, although past research has found that goal orienta-
tion moderates employees' responses to stressors (e.g., Peng, Zhang,
Xu, Matthews, & Jex, 2019; Whinghter et al.,2008), the underlying
mechanism is still unclear. We thus contribute to the research by
ascertaining one critical mechanism.
1 | T R A N S A C T I O N A L TH E O R Y A ND T H E
S T R E S S O R - A P P R A I S A L RE L A T I ON S H I P S
The transactional theory holds that when encountering a stressor,
people first perceive the presence and the level of the stressor to
understand what is happening. If the stressful encounter touches
something important to the individual, he/she will make appraisals to
frame its meaning in relation to himself/herself. Specifically, the indi-
vidual tends to appraise the personal significance and implications for
his/her valued goals and well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A
stressor can be appraised as a challenge that facilitates or a hindrance
that thwarts one's valued goals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith &
Lazarus, 1993).
Following this theory, the CHM argues that challenge stressors
are appraised as challenging because they can potentially promote
personal growth and work accomplishment (Lepine et al., 2005;
MA ET AL.
Webster et al., 2011). Hindrance stressors are appraised as hindering
because they primarily constrain personal growth and work goals
(Lepine et al., 2005; Webster et al., 2011). Research has consistently
supported the positive relationship between challenge stressors and
challenge appraisal and between hindrance stressors and hindrance
appraisal (e.g.,LePine et al., 2016 ; Liu & Li, 2018). We acknowledge
that because challenge and hindrance appraisals are not mutually
exclusive for a stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), an employee may
also appraise challenge stressors as hindering or hindrance stressors
as challenging (Webster et al., 2011). However, these cross-links have
received poor research support at both within- or between-person
levels (e.g., LePine et al., 2016; Prem, Ohly, Kubicek,
Korunka, 2017; Searle & Auton, 2015). Theoretically, the challenge
stressor-challenge appraisal and hindrance stressor-hindrance
appraisal relationships demonstrate the major implications of the
stressors and have been shown to confer the opposite effects on
employee work outcomes (LePine et al., 2016; Liu & Li, 2018). We
thus chose to focus on these relationships.
2 | T H E M O D E R A T I NG E F FE C T S O F G O A L
O R I E N T A T I O N ON TH E S T R E S SO R -
APPRAISAL RELATIONSHIPS
Appraisals are a function of the interaction between situational fac-
tors (e.g., the quality of a stressor) and personal characteristics
(e.g., the goals, values, and beliefs of an individual) (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). The transactional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)
argues that by shaping what is important to an individual and what an
individual seeks to achieve, personally valued goals define personal
significance and benchmark implications of a stressful encounter.
Thus, employees' challenge appraisal of challenge stressors and
hindrance appraisal of hindrance stressors may depend upon their
valued goals.
Employees differ in what they seek to achieve at work
(Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014). The concept of goal orienta-
tion outlines three subordinate goals in achievement situations
(VandeWalle, 1997). Learning goal orientation (LGO) is a desire to
develop oneself, improve competence, and master a situation;
performance prove goal orientation (PPGO) reflects a desire to
demonstrate one's competence, exhibit excellent performance, and
gain positive judgments from others; and performance avoid goal
orientation (PAGO) reflects a desire to conceal one's incompetency
and avoid performance failure and negative evaluation
(VandeWalle, 1997). Organizational research has widely tested and
validated this 3-factor conceptualization (e.g., Alexander & Van
Knippenberg, 2014; Rhee & Choi, 2017).
The literature also operationalizes goal orientation as either a trait
or a state (VandeWalle, Nerstad, & Dysvik, 2019). We focus on trait
goal orientation for two reasons. First, trait goal orientation describes
what an employee habitually pursues in achievement situations
(VandeWalle, 1997). According to the transactional theory, such
enduring dispositions govern an employee's appraisal mechanism and
3
predispose the employee to appraise stressors in certain ways
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Trait goal orientation thus can explain the
systematic variation in challenge (hindrance) appraisal of challenge
(hindrance) stressors. Additionally, theorizing state goal orientation as
the moderator in the stressor-appraisal relationships is theoretically
unjustifiable. Research has shown that time pressure (a typical chal-
lenge stressor) induces state goal orientation (Beck & Schmidt, 2013).
It indicates that situations can prime state goal orientation, which is
likely a product of appraisals (e.g., Wood, Maltby, Stewart, Linley, &
Joseph, 2008). To reduce confounding effects and facilitate more
accurate interpretations, studying trait goal orientation is warranted.
& The moderating effect of LGO. Employees high in LGO are
oriented toward personal development and skill acquisition
(VandeWalle, 1997). Challenge stressors provide an opportunity to
develop competence and master new skills. For example, complex
tasks call for advanced knowledge and skills and necessitate
experimenting with novel ideas and solutions. Employees high in LGO
tend to appraise challenge stressors as challenging because the
stressors can benefit their goals for learning and growth. In contrast,
employees low in LGO are less inspired to pursue personal growth
and skill development. Challenge stressors may be less valuable and
encouraging to them. Thus, employees low in LGO should be less
likely to appraise challenge stressors as challenging.
On the other hand, employees high in LGO are less hindered by
work obstacles and failures because they are prone to see the possi-
bility of developing themselves or mastering new competences in
such unfavorable conditions (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014;
Cianci, Klein, & Seijts, 2010; VandeWalle, 1997). For example, LGO
has been shown to counteract the positive effect of negative perfor-
mance feedback on tension (Cianci et al., 2010) and the negative
effect of task failure on intrinsic motivation (Grant & Dweck, 2003).
Hindrance stressors are generally seen as detrimental to personal
growth and work goals. However, employees high in LGO can
appraise hindrance stressors as less hindering because they tend to
frame this negative situation as an opportunity to develop alternative
coping skills. In other words, they are less likely to perceive the learn-
ing goals as being blocked in the context of hindrance stressors. In
contrast, employees low in LGO do not have such an adaptive insight.
Instead, they tend to view hindrance stressors as undesirable, unnec-
essary or even unreasonable. Thus, they are more likely to appraise
hindrance stressors as hindering.
Hypotheses 1a-1b. LGO strengthens the challenge stressor-challenge
appraisal relationship (1a) and weakens the hindrance stressor-
hindrance appraisal relationship (1b).
The moderating effect of PPGO. Employees high in PPGO are
eager to gain social approval by demonstrating competence and
performance success (Alexander & van Knippenberg, 2014;
VandeWalle, 1997). Researchers endorse PPGO as a form of approach
motivation that predisposes an employee to approach challenging
situations that validate his/her competence and foster greater accom-
plishment (Elliot & Church, 1997). Compared to simple and routine
4 MA ET AL.
demands that most employees can perform well, challenge stressors
indicate opportunities to outperform others, win preeminent recogni-
tion, and maximize success (Lepine et al., 2005; Wallace et al., 2009).
Therefore, although challenge stressors can be demanding and difficult,
employees high in PPGO may still view these stressors as conducive to
their performance-prove goals, which promotes challenge appraisal
(Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014). Conversely, those low in PPGO
may view challenge stressors as less challenging in that they attach less
importance to proving their competence and performance.
Hindrance stressors prevent employees from gaining recognition
and performance success as these stressors essentially limit
employees' full potential and constrain excellent performance (Lepine
et al., 2005; Rodell & Judge, 2009). Thus, hindrance stressors put per-
formance prove goals in jeopardy. This effect should be more salient
for employees high in PPGO who are highly oriented toward
performance-prove goals than those low in PPGO. Accordingly,
employees high in PPGO are more likely to view hindrance stressors
as blocking their goals and make hindrance appraisal. Supporting this,
research has found that in situations signaling failure, individuals high
in PPGO experienced more anxiety and fear (i.e., emotional indicators
of hindrance appraisal) than those low in PPGO (VandeWalle, Cron, &
Slocum, 2001). In contrast, employees low in PPGO are less attached
to performance-prove goals, which decreases their vulnerability to the
performance-threat of hindrance stressors. Compared to those high in
PPGO, employees low in PPGO should be less likely to make hin-
drance appraisal when facing the stressors.
Hypotheses 1c-1d. PPGO strengthens the challenge stressor–challenge
appraisal relationship (1c) and the hindrance stressor–hindrance
appraisal relationship (1d).
The moderating effect of PAGO. Rather than pursuing excellence,
employees high in PAGO are predisposed to avoid performance fail-
ure, demonstrations of incompetence, and negative evaluations
(VandeWalle, 1997). Although challenge stressors can benefit success
and growth, they are less valued by employees high in PAGO, who
seek to avoid the appearance of incompetence and falling behind
others. PAGO also represents a form of avoidance motivation with
reduced sensitivity to positive stimuli and heightened sensitivity to
negative stimuli (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Employees high in
PAGO are thus less sensitive to the challenging potential of challenge
stressors. Compared to those low in PAGO, employees high in PAGO
should be less likely to appraise challenge stressors as challenging.
Hindrance stressors threaten performance-avoidance goals due
to a high risk of task incompletion, work failure and being judged as
incompetent for the job (Rodell & Judge, 2009). Additionally,
employees high in PAGO can be highly susceptible to the hindering
potential of hindrance stressors, which further intensifies their pro-
pensity to make hindrance appraisal. In contrast, employees low in
PAGO are less oriented toward the performance-avoidance goals and
less vulnerable to a risk of poor performance. They may view hin-
drance stressors as less detrimental and be less likely to make hin-
drance appraisal.
Hypotheses 1e-1f. PAGO weakens the challenge stressor–challenge
appraisal relationship (1e) and strengthens the hindrance
stressor–hindrance appraisal relationship (1f).
3 | STRESSORS, APPRAISALS, AND JOB
PERFORMANCE
The transactional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) suggests that chal-
lenge and hindrance appraisals affect job performance in opposite
directions. Job performance comprises task performance and contex-
tual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Task performance
refers to how proficiently an employee executes prescribed work tasks
that directly contribute to the organization's technical core (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1997; Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Contextual performance
facilitates organizational goals by promoting the organizational, social
and psychological context (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Work
proactivity, a set of self-initiated, future-oriented and persistent behav-
iors to change oneself, work roles or procedures, is a proactive form of
contextual performance (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Organizations
value both task performance and work proactivity, because employees
must effectively complete prescribed tasks and take initiatives to seize
the present and win the future (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007).
Challenge appraisal indicates that a situation is motive consistent
and goal facilitating and leads to desired outcomes (Searle &
Auton, 2015). Therefore, challenge appraisal stimulates approach-
oriented coping tendencies, meaning an individual proactively
approaches the demands with bursts of inspiration and high effort
expenditure (Liu & Li, 2018). Challenge appraisal has been found to
relate positively to task performance and work proactivity
(e.g., Searle & Auton, 2015). Hindrance appraisal indicates that a situa-
tion is motive inconsistent and has a negative impact on valued goals.
It provokes avoidance-oriented tendencies, where a person is inclined
to withhold efforts and disengage from the demands (Liu & Li, 2018).
Thus, hindrance appraisal should compromise task performance and
work proactivity. Research has postulated that challenge stressors elicit
challenge appraisal and in turn promote job performance, whereas hin-
drance stressors elicit hindrance appraisal and in turn undermine job
performance (LePine et al., 2016; Searle & Auton, 2015).
Hypothesis 2a. Challenge appraisal mediates the positive relationship
between challenge stressors and task performance/work
proactivity.
Hypothesis 2b. Hindrance appraisal mediates the negative relationship
between challenge stressors and task performance/work
proactivity.
4 | T H E M O D E RA T E D M ED I A T I O N M O D E L
By affecting challenge (hindrance) stressor-challenge (hindrance)
appraisal relationships, goal orientation further moderates indirect
MA ET AL.
relationships between challenge/hindrance stressors and task perfor-
mance/work proactivity via the appraisals. Compared to those low in
LGO, employees high in LGO are more likely to appraise challenge
stressors as challenging and thus respond more positively to them. On
this basis, employees high in LGO should exhibit higher levels of task
performance and proactivity when encountering challenge stressors.
On the other hand, employees high in LGO are less likely to appraise
hindrance stressors as hindering and in turn respond less negatively to
them. Hindrance stressors should thus affect their performance to a
lower extent.
Hypotheses 3a-3b. LGO strengthens the indirect relationship between
challenge stressors and task performance/work proactivity via
challenge appraisal (3a) and weakens the indirect relationship
between hindrance stressors and task performance/work
proactivity via hindrance appraisal (3b).
Additionally, compared to those low in PPGO, employees high in
PPGO are more likely to appraise challenge stressors as challenging.
When encountering challenge appraisal, employees high in PPGO
should thus exhibit higher levels of task performance and work
proactivity. However, employees high in PPGO tend to appraise
hindrance stressors as hindering and thus respond more negatively to
hindrance stressors, suggesting that hindrance stressors are more
deleterious to their task performance and work proactivity.
Hypotheses 3c-3d. PPGO strengthens both the indirect relationship
between challenge stressors and task performance/work
proactivity via challenge appraisal (3c) and the indirect relation-
ship between hindrance stressors and task performance/work
proactivity via hindrance appraisal (3d).
Finally, employees high in PAGO are less likely to appraise chal-
lenge stressors as challenging. Therefore, for employees high in
PAGO, challenge stressors are less likely to stimulate task perfor-
mance and work proactivity. Moreover, employees high in PAGO tend
FIGURE 1 The theoretical model
5
to appraise hindrance stressors as hindering and to disengage them-
selves from job demands. Thus, compared to those low in PAGO,
employees high in PAGO should exhibit lower levels of task perfor-
mance and work proactivity in response to hindrance stressors.
Hypotheses 3e-3f. PAGO weakens the indirect relationship between
challenge stressors and task performance/work proactivity (3e) via
challenge appraisal and strengthens the indirect relationship
between hindrance stressors and task performance/work
proactivity via hindrance appraisal (3f).
5 | T H E CU R R E N T S T U D Y
The theoretical model is presented in Figure 1. We test the hypothe-
ses in Study 1 using a time-lagged design and multisourced data with
the aim of testing how goal orientation affects the between-person
process linking stressors to performance via appraisals. We also
employ a 5-day daily diary design in Study 2 to examine if goal orien-
tation would moderate the within-person process linking stressors to
performance via appraisals on a daily basis. This approach has several
merits. First, it prevents isomorphic generalization; that is, generalizing
an observed effect at the between-person level to the within-person
level without evidence (Liao, Lee, Johnson, & Lin, 2020). Second, mea-
suring the stressors and appraisals at the daily level can minimize ret-
rospective bias (Gabriel et al., 2019; Sonnentag et al., 2013). Finally,
we can replicate the findings of Study 1 by aggregating the within-
person data to the between-person level (Gabriel et al., 2019).
For Study 2, collecting within-person data on the daily level is justi-
fied and even preferable to the event-/task-level assessments. First,
many challenge and hindrance stressors are not discrete events, nor
are they connected to each individual task; rather, they unfold over the
course of a workday (Sonnentag, Reinecke, Mata, & Vorderer, 2018).
For example, workload as a single event is not necessarily stressful;
instead, it becomes stressful when an employee has to complete many
tasks in a short timeframe. Event-/task-level assessments thus may
6 MA ET AL.
inaccurately capture the phenomenon. As job stressors do not exist in
vacuum, employees' appraisals and reactions are not directed to a
single stressor in an isolated fashion but rather toward constellations of
multiple stressors they encounter (van Woerkom, Bakker, &
Nishii, 2016). Thus, assessing the variables at the daily level provides a
good reflection of employee stress experience at work.
6 | STUDY 1: METHOD
6.1 | Participants and procedures
We recruited full-time employees (N = 380) and their direct supervi-
sors (N = 93) from three organizations (i.e., a law firm, an accounting
firm, and a financial consulting firm) in mainland China. The data
collection was conducted in compliance with the ethical guidance of
the American Psychological Association (APA) and was approved by
the first author's affiliated institute. With the support of the HR
departments in the organizations, we obtained a list of employees and
their direct supervisors with contact information. We ensured the
employees and supervisors that the participation was voluntary, and
the data would be kept confidential and used only for research
purposes. We offered each employee 10 RMB ($1.5) and each super-
visor 20 RMB ($3.0) for participation.
Past research has tested challenge/hindrance stressor-
performance relationships with time lags ranging from two weeks
(e.g., Kim & Beehr, 2018) to three months (LePine et al., 2016). We
collected the data in two phases, one month apart, because this time
lag is long enough to establish a theoretically meaningful temporal
order for stressor-outcome relationships, while short enough to
maintain response rate and warrant stability in work environments
that minimizes confounds due to situational variability (Dawson,
O'Brien, & Beehr, 2016; LePine et al., 2016). At Time 1, 252 out of
the 380 employees completed a survey assessing stressors, appraisals,
goal orientation, and demographic information. At Time 2, the
252 employees' direct supervisors (N = 74) were asked to rate focal
employees' task performance and work proactivity. We obtained
performance ratings for 219 employees from 66 supervisors. Using an
assigned identification code, we matched data for 214 employee-
supervisor dyads with ratings from 64 supervisors. The final sample
included various occupations, such as lawyers and apprentice lawyers
(44.2%), accountants (25.6% with 17% certified public accountants),
financial service consultants and financial analysts (18.9%), and office
managers, HR managers and supporting employees (e.g., IT staff and
public relations personnel) (11.3%). The mean age of the final sample
was 31.16 years (SD = 8.09), and the average job tenure was
4.81 years (SD = 4.52). We conducted one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to examine whether there was selective attrition due to the
characteristics of the employees. The results indicated that employees
with and without complete data did not differ significantly in gender,
age, job tenure, job level, level of education, challenge and hindrance
stressors, or challenge and hindrance appraisals. Selective attrition
thus did not appear in this study.
6.2 | Measures
Except for the challenge and hindrance stressors scale, we instructed
the employees and supervisors to rate their agreement with each item
on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Two research assistants fluent in both English and Chinese followed
back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1985) and translated the scales
from English to Chinese.
Challenge and hindrance stressors were assessed with the scale by
LePine et al. (2016) in which challenge stressors (e.g., “Having to use a
broad set of skills and abilities”) (α = .84) and hindrance stressors
(e.g., “Inadequate resources to accomplish tasks”) (α = .90) were
assessed with 10 items each. Employees were asked to rate the fre-
quency of each stressor in their work on a five-point scale from
1 (never) to 5 (extremely often).
Challenge and hindrance appraisals were assessed with the scale
by LePine et al. (2016). As people make appraisals after encountering
a stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), appraisals were measured after
the stressor scale. Challenge (e.g., “Working to fulfill the demands of
my job helps to improve my personal growth and well-being”)
(α = .77) and hindrance (e.g., “I feel the demands of my job constrain
my achievement of personal goals and development”) (α = .85)
appraisals were assessed with three items each.
Goal orientation was assessed with a nine-item workplace goal ori-
entation scale used by Rhee and Choi (2017), which was taken from
VandeWalle's (1997) 13-item scale. LGO (e.g., “I am willing to select a
challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from”) (α = .77),
PPGO (“I prefer to work on projects where I can prove my ability to
others”) (α = .75), and PAGO (“I would avoid taking on a new task if
there was a chance that I would appear rather incompetent to
others”) (α = .74) were assessed with three items each.
Task performance was rated by employees' direct supervisors with
4 items from Williams and Anderson's (1991) in-role job performance
scale (e.g., “This employee adequately completes assigned duties”)
(α = .83).1 These four items have been used to measure task perfor-
mance in previous studies (e.g., Ma & Peng, 2019).
Work proactivity was rated by employees' direct supervisors with
6 items from the work proactivity scale (Griffin et al., 2007) (α = .90).2
We selected the items (e.g., “This employee initiated better ways of
doing his/her core tasks”) to assess proactivity exhibited at individual
level and team level because in modern organizations people execute
job roles and complete responsibilities at both levels (e.g., Ma &
Peng, 2019).
6.3 | Analytical Strategy
The data were nested in nature as each supervisor rated multiple
employees (M = 3.35). The ICC(1)s of task performance and work
This measure yielded excellent fit for a one-factor model: χ 2 (2) = 1.82 (p = .40), CFI = 1.00,
1
TFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.02.
This measure yielded excellent fit for a one-factor model: χ 2 (9) = 11.77 (p = 0.22),
2
CFI = 0.99, TFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03.
MA ET AL. 7

proactivity were 0.15 and 0.11, respectively, suggesting that 15% and
11% of the variance in task performance and work proactivity respec-
tively was attributable to the supervisor effect. Multilevel modeling
should be used when the ICC(1) exceeds 0.05 (LeBreton &
Senter, 2008). To address the data dependency and estimate all param-
eters simultaneously, we tested the theoretical model using two-level
path modeling via Mplus 7.1 (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010). Indi-
rect effects and conditional indirect effects were estimated with the
Monte Carlo approach using the R-mediation package.
In this study, we specified and assessed all variables at the person
level and intended to test between-person effects. Thus, the rank
order of stressors is used to predict that of appraisals/performance
within the whole sample (Gabriel et al., 2019). The literature asserts
that the variable centering approach must align with the research
question (e.g., Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). We thus centered the predic-
tors at the grand mean to generate between-person differences. Fol-
lowing with LePine et al. (2016), we estimated and controlled two
unhypothesized, cross-link relationships (i.e., challenge stressor-
hindrance appraisal, and hindrance stressor-challenge appraisal), and
the moderating effect of goal orientation on these relationships. In ini-
tial analysis, we controlled for age, gender, job tenure, job level, and
education. However, none of them significantly predicted any endog-
enous variables. Following with Becker et al. (2016), we excluded
them from the analysis and reported the results accordingly. The
results remained the same with and without the control variables.
7 | STUDY 1 : R ES ULTS
7.1 | Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
We performed a series of CFAs to examine the distinctiveness of the
study variables. The hypothesized 9-factor measurement yielded a
good fit: χ 2 (909) = 1192.61 (p < .001), CFI = .92, TFI = .91,
RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .06. Comparisons with alternative models
(e.g., by collapsing some factors to form alternative models; Table A1)
suggested that the nine-factor model fits the data best. All items
loaded significantly (p < .01) on corresponding constructs, with factor
loadings ranging from .52 to .89. We further assessed whether com-
mon method bias is a concern by testing a measurement model with
two latent unmeasured method factors (i.e., self-rating and
supervisor-rating). The model with two unmeasured latent method
factors yielded a good fit. However, it failed to significantly improve
the model fit compared to the hypothesized 9-factor model
(Table A1). Thus, common method bias did not threaten the validity of
the results.
7.2 | Hypothesis testing
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the study vari-
ables are presented in Table 1. The two-level path model yielded a
good fit: χ 2 (19) = 44.16 (p < .001), CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07,
SRMR = .04. The path coefficients are summarized in Table 2. The
results of indirect and conditional indirect effects are summarized
in Table 3.
The moderating effect of LGO. LGO moderated the challenge
stressor-challenge appraisal relationship (γ = .26, p = .02). Simple slope
analysis indicates that the relationship was stronger for employees
high in LGO (+1SD) (γ = .36, p < .001) than for those low in LGO
(-1SD) (γ = .08, p = .37) (Figure 2a). LGO also moderated the hindrance
stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = −.33, p = .001), as the
relationship was stronger for employees low in LGO (γ = .77, p < .001)
than for those high in LGO (γ = .42, p < .001) (Figure 2b). Thus,
Hypotheses 1a-1b were supported.
The moderating effect of PPGO. Supporting Hypotheses 1c-1d,
PPGO moderated the challenge stressor-challenge appraisal rela-
tionship (γ = .21, p = .004); the relationship was stronger for
employees high in PPGO (γ = .38, p < .001) than for those low in
PPGO (γ = .07, p = .47) (Figure 2a). PPGO also moderated the hin-
drance stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = .26, p = .002),
as the relationship was stronger for employees high in PPGO

TABLE 1 Study 1: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. LGO 3.96 .53 (.77)
2. PPGO 3.54 .72 .32** (.75)
3. PAGO 2.97 .81 −.30** −.06 (.74) -
4. Challenge stressors 3.52 .59 .20** .24** −.00 (.84)
5. Hindrance stressors 2.25 .80 −.07 .22** .23** .42** (.90)
6. Challenge appraisal 3.89 .59 .45** .17* −.10 .21** −.15* (.77)
7. Hindrance appraisal 2.43 .87 −.24** .15* .17* .18* .58** −.34** (.85)
8. Task performance 4.23 .51 .33** .08 −.08 .06 −.18* .32** −.37** (.83)
9. Work proactivity 3.61 .73 .29** .24** −.12 .26** .02 .30** −.16** .17** (.90)

Note. N = 214. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. LGO = learning goal orientation; PPGO = performance prove goal orientation; PAGO = performance
avoid goal orientation. Internal consistency reliabilities are on the diagonal within prentices.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
8 MA ET AL.

TABLE 2 Study 1: Path coefficients of two-level path modeling

Dependent variables

Predictors Challenge appraisal Hindrance appraisal Task performance Work proactivity

Challenge stressors 0.22(0.07)** −0.04(0.10) 0.04(0.05) 0.26(0.12)*
Hindrance stressors −0.17(0.04)** 0.59(0.06)** −0.01(0.07) 0.04(0.10)
Challenge appraisal 0.18(0.05)** 0.25(0.10)**
Hindrance appraisal −0.16(0.07)* −0.16(0.06)**
LGO 0.38(0.07)** −0.26(0.09)**
PPGO 0.02(0.05) 0.15(0.06)*
PAGO 0.06(0.05) −0.01(0.06)
Challenge stressors × LGO 0.26(0.11)* −0.17(0.14)
Challenge stressors × PPGO 0.21(0.07)** −0.10(0.10)
Challenge stressors × PAGO −0.02(0.07) −0.11(0.11)
Hindrance stressors × LGO 0.12(0.08) −0.33(0.10)**
Hindrance stressors × PPGO 0.01(0.05) 0.26(0.08)**
Hindrance stressors × PAGO 0.02(0.06) 0.16(0.08)*

Note: LGO = learning goal orientation; PPGO = performance prove goal orientation; PAGO = performance avoid goal orientation. The predictors were
grand-mean centered before analysis.
*p < .05. **p < .01. The coefficient estimates were unstandardized and the standard error for coefficient was in the parentheses.

TABLE 3 Study 1: Summary of indirect effects

Dependent variables

Task performance Work proactivity

Predictors Effect Monte Carlo 95%CI Effect Monte Carlo 95%CI
Challenge stressors
Average indirect effect via challenge appraisal .04 [.01, .07] .05 [.01, .09]
Conditional indirect effect via challenge appraisal low LGO .02 [−.02, .06] .02 [−.03, .08]
High LGO .07 [.02, .13] .08 [.03, .14]
Difference .05 [.003, .12] .06 [.004, .12]
Low PPGO .01 [−.03, .06] .02 [−.04, .08]
High PPGO .07 [.02, .16] .08 [.03, .12]
Difference .06 [.004, .15] .07 [.01, .16]
Low PAGO .05 [.01, .10] .05 [.01, .10]
High PAGO .04 [.01, .10] .04 [.01, .10]
Difference .01 [−.07, .07] .01 [−.09, .07]

Hindrance stressors
Average indirect effect via hindrance appraisal −.09 [−.14, −.03] −.10 [−.18, −.03]
Conditional indirect effect via hindrance appraisal low LGO −.12 [−.20, −.04] −.13 [−.20, −.04]
High LGO −.06 [−.12, −.01] −.07 [−.13, −.02]
Difference .06 [.01, .13] .06 [.01, .16]
Low PPGO −.06 [−.12, −.01] −.07 [−.13, −.02]
High PPGO −.12 [−.19, −.03] −.13 [−.20, −.04]
Difference .06 [.02, .12] .06 [.01, .16]
Low PAGO −.07 [−.13, −.02] −.08 [−.14, −.02]
High PAGO −.11 [−.18, −.04] −.12 [−.19, −.04]
Difference .04 [.002, .10] .04 [.001, .10]

Note: The indirect effects were calculated by Monte Carlo approach with 20,000 repetitions.
MA ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 a & 2 b LGO and PPGO moderate the challenge stressor-challenge appraisal (left) and the hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal
(right) relationships in Study 1
F I G U R E 2 c PAGO moderates the hindrance stressor-hindrance
appraisal relationship in Study 1
(γ = .78, p < .001) than for those low in PPGO (γ = .40, p < .001)
(Figure 2b).
The moderating effect of PAGO. PAGO failed to moderate the chal-
lenge stressor-challenge appraisal relationship (γ = −.02, p = .77).
Hypothesis 1e was thus not supported. However, supporting
Hypothesis 1f, PAGO significantly moderated the hindrance stressor-
hindrance appraisal relation (γ = .16, p = .03); the relationship was
stronger for employees high in PAGO (γ = .73, p < .001) than for those
low in PAGO (γ = .46, p < .001) (Figure 2c).
The mediating effects. Supporting Hypothesis 2a and 2b, challenge
appraisal significantly mediated the positive relationships of challenge
stressors with task performance and work proactivity, and hindrance
appraisal significantly mediated the relationships of hindrance
stressors with task performance and work proactivity.
Moderated mediation effects. Supporting Hypotheses 3a-3b, LGO
strengthened the indirect effects of challenge stressors on task per-
formance/work proactivity via challenge appraisal and weakened the
indirect effects of hindrance stressors on task performance/work
proactivity via hindrance appraisal. Supporting Hypotheses 3c-3d,
PPGO strengthened the indirect effects of challenge stressors on task
performance/work proactivity via challenge appraisal and those of
9
hindrance stressors on task performance/work proactivity via
hindrance appraisal. We failed to support Hypothesis 3e, as PAGO did
not significantly moderate the indirect effects of challenge stressors
on task performance/work proactivity via challenge appraisal.
However, supporting Hypothesis 3f, PAGO strengthened the indirect
effects of hindrance stressors on task performance/work proactivity
via hindrance appraisal.
8 | STUDY 2: METHODS
8.1 | Participants and procedures
We recruited 250 full-time employees from multiple industries and
organizations in mainland China (e.g., finance and banking, advertis-
ing/public relations, information technology, higher education). As in
Study 1, the data collection procedure was performed in compliance
with the ethical guidance of APA and was approved by the first
author's affiliated institute. First, we distributed a one-time survey
assessing goal orientation and demographic variables. One week
later, the employees were instructed to complete two daily surveys
per day for five consecutive workdays, a time frame commonly used
in previous ESM studies (e.g., Sonnentag et al., 2018). The survey
assessing daily stressors and appraisals was sent each day during
lunch break (i.e., 12:00 pm) and the survey on task performance
and work proactivity was sent at the end of each workday
(i.e., 5:30 pm). We rewarded the employees with 100 RMB ($14.20)
for participation.
Although we might have missed some information on stressors
that employees experienced in the afternoon, this assessment time
frame was informative and appropriate. First, it allowed us to model
the lagged effect of stressors/appraisals on performance, which aligns
with the theory and helps reduce common method bias (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, it took time for
employees to deliver the results in response to encountered stressors.
For example, they might have spent the afternoon handling the
demands assigned in the morning.
10
Both surveys were sent via email or Wechat (an instant messag-
ing application), and the employees were requested to complete each
daily survey within 3 hours after it was sent. We removed surveys
with missing values and unmatched data and excluded surveys com-
pleted outside the prescribed time frame. This yielded 857 (of a possi-
ble 1250) matched daily observations nested within 205 employees.
In the final sample, the mean age was 33.17 years (SD = 9.32), the
mean job tenure was 9.31 years (SD = 9.30), and 55.8% were male.
8.2 | Measures
Except for daily challenge and hindrance stressors, we assessed all the
study variables with the same scale used in Study 1. The items
assessing daily variables were adapted to refer to daily experiences
(e.g., “Today, …”). Unless otherwise noted, the employees evaluated
the extent to which they agree with each item from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). The average Cronbach's alpha was .81 for
daily challenge appraisal (ranging from .79 to .86), .83 for daily hin-
drance appraisal (ranging from .82 to .86), .83 for daily task perfor-
mance (ranged from .78 to .87), and .87 for daily work proactivity
(ranging from .84 to .89). Cronbach's alphas were .71, .71, and .83 for
LGO, PPGO, and PAGO, respectively.
Daily challenge and hindrance stressors were assessed with
12 items adapted from LePine et al.'s (LePine et al., 2016) 20-item
scale. Daily challenge stressors (e.g., “Today, I have to complete a lot
of work”) and hindrance stressors (e.g., “Today, I had inadequate
resources to accomplish tasks”) were assessed with six items each.
We referred to Rodell and Judge's (2009) daily challenge and hin-
drance stressors scale and other studies investigating challenge and
hindrance stressors at the daily level to select the items (e.g., Prem
et al., 2017; Searle & Auton, 2015). The selected items captured typi-
cal challenge and hindrance stressors (e.g., workload and situational
constraints) that, as the literature suggested, fluctuate largely on a
3
daily basis. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .80 and .88 and from .90
and .92 for challenge stressors (M = 0.84) and hindrance stressors
(M = 0.91), respectively.
8.3 | Analytical strategy
The results of the ICC(1)s suggest that the daily variables had the
within-person variance ranging from 29% to 75%, which is sufficient
for multilevel modeling (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Referring to the lit-
erature (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998; Liao et al., 2020; Preacher
et al., 2010), we employed two-level unconflated path modeling to
test the hypotheses at both levels simultaneously for less biased esti-
mation. With Mplus 7.1, we entered the daily stressors and the daily
3
A two-level CFA confirmed the two-factor model of this shortened measure: χ2
(68) = 238.52 (p < 0.001), CFI = 0.96, TFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMRwithin = 0.06. By using
the data of Study 1, we also found that the shortened measure of challenge stressors was
strongly correlated with the original measure (r = 0.92, p < 0.001), as was the shortened
measure of hindrance stressors (r = 0.95, p < 0.001).
MA ET AL.
appraisals at Level 1 and modeled their relationships using random
slopes. We person-mean centered the Level 1 variables prior to analy-
sis to remove between-person variance (Preacher et al., 2010). We
also entered the aggregated stressors, goal orientation, and the aggre-
gated appraisals at Level 2, with the aggregated variables being each
employee's mean scores of the daily variables across the workdays.
All the Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered to retain only
between-person variance (Preacher et al., 2010). This model involved
the intercepts-and-slopes-as-outcome model to estimate the cross-
level interactions (i.e., goal orientation moderates the within-person
relationships between stressors and appraisals). Accordingly, we spec-
ified the random slopes of the daily stressor-appraisal relationships to
vary across goal orientation. This model also allowed estimating the
between-person-level interactions (i.e., goal orientation moderates
the between-person relationships between stressors and appraisals).
We thus entered the between-person-level interactions of goal orien-
tation and the aggregated stressors at Level 2 to predict the aggre-
gated appraisals.
9 | STUDY 2: RESULTS
9.1 | CFA
A two-level CFA was conducted to examine the distinctiveness of
study variables (i.e., six daily variables and three between-person vari-
ables). This model received an acceptable fit, χ 2 (359) = 1229.19
(p < .001), CFI = .91, TFI = .90, RMSEA = .04.
9.2 | Hypothesis testing
Table 4 summarizes descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation for
study variables. Table 5 reports the path coefficients of the two-level
path modeling. The proposed indirect and conditional indirect effects
at the within- and between-person levels are summarized in Table 6
in the main text and in Table A2, respectively.
The moderating effect of LGO. At the within-person level, LGO mod-
erated the daily challenge stressor-challenge appraisal relationship
(γ = .36, p < .001) such that the relationship was stronger for
employees high in LGO (γ = .58, p < .001) than for those low in LGO
(γ = .17, p = .05) (Figure 3a). LGO also moderated the daily hindrance
stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = −.22, p = .02); the rela-
tionship was stronger for employees low in LGO (γ = .34, p < .001)
than for those high in LGO (γ = .10, p = .10) (Figure 3b). At the
between-person level, LGO also moderated the challenge stressor-
challenge appraisal relationship (γ = .32, p = .03); the relationship was
stronger for employees high in LGO (γ = .74, p < .001) than for those
low in LGO (γ = .37, p = .05) (Figure A1a). LGO also moderated the
hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = −.30,
p = .001); the relationship was stronger for people low in LGO
(γ = .76, p < .001) than for those high in LGO (γ = .43, p < .001)
(Figure A1b). Hypotheses 1a-1b were thus supported at both levels.
MA ET AL. 11

TABLE 4 Study 2: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study variables

Variables M SD ICC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. LGO 4.03 .57 — (.71) .45** −.16** −.05 .01 .08 −.10 .19** .09
2. PPGO 3.61 .71 — .38** (.71) −.03 .12 .08 .17* .10 .17* .11
3. PAGO 3.24 .87 — −.13** −.01 (.83) .18* .16* .02 .27** .01 .07
4. Challenge stressors 3.44 .70 .48 −.01 .12** .13** (.84) .61** .50** .50** .33** .48**
5. Hindrance stressors 2.99 .95 .71 −.01 .07* .15** .56** (.91) .16* .76** −.04 .27**
6. Challenge appraisal 3.61 .71 .34 .06 .13** −.01 .41** .12** (.80) .14* .40** .52**
7. Hindrance appraisal 2.88 .88 .57 −.12** .10** .23** .40** .62** .09** (.83) −.15* −.11
8. Task performance 3.77 .64 .25 .13** .10** −.02 .25** −.04 .37** −.13* (.83) .49**
9. Work proactivity 3.73 .75 .36 .11** .09** .03 .36** .17** .49** .02 .48** (.87)

Note. Nbetween = 205, Nwithin = 857. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, ICC (Intraclass Correlation) = between-person variance/total variance.
LGO = learning goal orientation; PPGO = performance prove goal orientation; PAGO = performance avoid goal orientation. Internal consistency reliabilities
are on the diagonal within prentices.
*p < .05. **p < .01. Correlations at the within-person level were presented below the diagonal. Correlations at the between-person level were presented
above the diagonal.

The moderating effect of PPGO. At the within-person level, PPGO
moderated the daily challenge stressor-challenge appraisal relation-
ship (γ = .20, p = .02) such that the relationship was stronger for
employees high in PPGO (γ = .52, p < .001) than for those low in
PPGO (γ = .23, p = .01) (Figure 3a). PPGO also moderated the daily
hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = .18, p = .02),
as the relationship was stronger for employees high in PPGO (γ = .35,
p < .001) than for those low in PPGO (γ = .10, p = .15) (Figure 3b). At
the between-person level, PPGO moderated the challenge stressor-
challenge appraisal relationship (γ = .30, p = .01), as the relationship
was stronger for employees high in PPGO (γ = .77, p < .001) than for
those low in PPGO (γ = .35, p < .001) (Figure A1a). PPGO also moder-
ated the hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = .18,
p = .01), as the relationship was stronger for employees high in PPGO
(γ = .68, p < .001) than for those low in PPGO (γ = .46, p < .001)
(Figure A1b). Hypotheses 1c-1d were thus supported at both levels.
The moderating effect of PAGO. At the within-person level, PAGO
failed to moderate the daily challenge stressor-challenge appraisal
relationship (γ = .09, p = .15). However, it significantly moderated the
daily hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship (γ = .16,
p = .004), as the relationship was stronger for employees high in
PAGO (γ = .36, p < .001) than for those low in PAGO (γ = .09, p = .26)
(Figure 3c). At the between-person level, PAGO failed to moderate the
challenge stressor-challenge appraisal relationship (γ = −.08, p = .32)
either, but it significantly moderated the hindrance stressor-hindrance
appraisal relationship (γ = .09, p = .04). The relationship was stronger
for employees high in PAGO (γ = .67, p < .001) than for those low in
PAGO (γ = .52, p < .001) (Figure A1c). Thus, we supported Hypothesis
1f, but not Hypothesis 1e, at both levels.
The mediating effects. At both levels, challenge appraisal and hin-
drance appraisal significantly mediated the positive relationships of
challenge stressors with task performance/work proactivity and the
negative relationships of hindrance stressors with task performance/
work proactivity, respectively. Hypotheses 2a-2b were
supported.
The moderated mediation effects. Supporting Hypotheses 3a-3b, at
both levels, LGO enhanced the indirect effects of challenge stressors
on task performance/work proactivity via challenge appraisal and
weakened the indirect effects of hindrance stressors on task perfor-
mance/work proactivity via hindrance appraisal. Similarly, at both
levels, PPGO enhanced the indirect effects of challenge stressors on
task performance/work proactivity via challenge appraisal and the
indirect effects of hindrance stressors on task performance/work
proactivity via hindrance appraisal. Hypotheses 3c-3d were thus
supported. Finally, PAGO failed to moderate the indirect effects of
challenge stressors on task performance/work proactivity via
challenge appraisal at both levels. Hypothesis 3e was thus not
supported. However, at both levels, PAGO enhanced the indirect
effects of hindrance stressors on task performance/work proactivity
via hindrance appraisal. Hypothesis 3f was thus supported.
10 | DISCUSSION
The current study investigated the moderating effect of goal orienta-
tion on the stressor-appraisal relationships at both the between- and
the within-person levels. We obtained convergent results in two stud-
ies at both levels. LGO and PPGO strengthened the challenge
stressor-challenge appraisal relationship and the positive indirect
relationships between challenge stressors and task performance/work
proactivity via challenge appraisal. LGO weakened the hindrance
stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship and the negative indirect
relationship between hindrance stressors and task performance/work
proactivity via hindrance appraisal. Finally, PPGO and PAGO strength-
ened the hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal relationship and the
negative indirect relationship between hindrance stressors and task
performance/work proactivity via hindrance appraisal.
Unexpectedly, we failed to find a moderating effect of PAGO on
thus the challenge stressor-challenge appraisal relationship in either study.
There are two possible explanations. First, PAGO is a form of
12 MA ET AL.

TABLE 5 Study 2: Path coefficients of two-level path modeling

Dependent variables

Predictors Challenge appraisal Hindrance appraisal Task performance Work proactivity

Within-person effects
Challenge stressors .38(.05)** .15(.05)** .25(.07)** .17(.05)**
Hindrance stressors −.08(.06) .23(.05)** −.03(.05) .04(.04)
Challenge appraisal .28(.07)** .47(.05)**
Hindrance appraisal −.18(.03)** −.22(.06)**
Between-person effects
Challenge stressors .56(.08)** −.00(.08) .25(.11)* .25(.11)**
Hindrance stressors −.16(.05)** .59(.04)** −.10(.05) .16(.06)*
Challenge appraisal .24(.12)* .40(.14)**
Hindrance appraisal −.11(.06)* −.21(.06)**
LGO .06(.06) −.21(.07)**
PPGO .05(.05) .07(.05)
PAGO −.04(.04) .11(.03)**
Challenge stressors × LGO .32(.15)* .19(.15)
Challenge stressors × PPGO .30(.11)** −.03(.10)
Challenge stressors × PAGO −.08(.08) −.02(.06)
Hindrance stressors × LGO −.06(.09) −.30(.09)**
Hindrance stressors × PPGO .02(.06) .18(.07)*
Hindrance stressors × PAGO .14(.15) .09(.04)*
Cross-level interactions
Challenge stressors × LGO .36(.10)** .12(.10)
Challenge stressors × PPGO .20(.09)* −.12(.09)
Challenge stressors × PAGO .09(.06) .01(.06)
Hindrance stressors × LGO −.13(.09) −.22(.09)*
Hindrance stressors × PPGO −.01(.08) .18(.08)*
Hindrance stressors × PAGO −.15(.07)* .16(.06)**

Note: LGO = learning goal orientation; PPGO = performance prove goal orientation; PAGO = performance avoid goal orientation. The Level 1 predictors
were person-mean centered and the Level 2 predictors were grand-mean centered prior to analysis.
*p < .05. **p < .01. The coefficient estimates were unstandardized and the standard error for coefficient was in the parentheses.

avoidance motivation that channels individuals' attention to obstacles
and cues their sensitivity to potential loss (e.g., performance failure)
that is salient in a given situation (Elliot, 2006). For this reason,
challenge stressors directed at greater success may be less relevant to
PAGO and ineffective in affecting challenge appraisal of challenge
stressors. Another reason may be related to the samples. The partici-
pants were highly educated and worked in industries where challenge
stressors are pervasive (e.g., law, accountanting, and consultanting).
They might have become accustomed to challenge stressors, weaken-
ing the effect of PAGO on the challenge stressors.
10.1 | Theoretical implications
The present study extends the CHM research by advancing the
knowledge of individual differences in appraising challenge and
hindrance stressors. Although the CHM relies heavily on the assump-
tion that appraisals differentiate challenge and hindrance stressors
and argues for the opposite effects of these stressors on employee
outcomes, limited attention has been paid to individual differences in
the appraisal process (O'Brien & Beehr, 2019). Instead, the CHM
seems to assume that employees appraise these stressors similarly
(e.g., Byron, Peterson, Zhang, & LePine, 2018; Cavanaugh et al., 2000;
Lepine et al., 2005). This assumption is inconsistent with the transac-
tional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) as well as the nature of
appraisal. We found that goal orientation systematically influenced
employees' appraisals of challenge and hindrance stressors. That is,
the extent to which an employee appraises challenge stressors as
challenging and hindrance stressors as hindering depends upon the
desired goals the employee seeks to achieve. Employees high in LGO
and PPGO are more likely to make challenge appraisal of challenge
stressors because they attach greater importance to personal growth
MA ET AL. 13

TABLE 6 Study 2: Summary of indirect effects at the within-person level

Dependent variables

Task performance Work proactivity

Predictors Effect Monte Carlo 95%CI Effect Monte Carlo 95%CI
Challenge stressors
Indirect effect via challenge appraisal .11 [.07, .14] .18 [.14, .23]
Conditional indirect effect via challenge appraisal low LGO .04 [.003, .10] .07 [.01, .15]
High LGO .17 [.10, .25] .28 [.20, .35]
Difference .12 [.06, .20] .20 [.10, .31]
Low PPGO .07 [.02, .11] .11 [.04, .18]
High PPGO .15 [.10, .22] .24 [.18, .33]
Difference .08 [.02, .14] .13 [.03, .25]
Low PAGO .08 [.04, .13] .14 [.07, .20]
High PAGO .11 [.08, .19] .20 [.14, .29]
Difference .03 [−.01, .05] .06 [−.01, .12]
Hindrance stressors
Indirect effect via hindrance appraisal −.04 [−.07, −.01] −.05 [−.08, −.01]
Conditional indirect effect via hindrance appraisal low LGO −.06 [−.10, −.01] −.08 [−.12, −.03]
High LGO −.02 [−.06, .01] −.02 [−.04, .01]
Difference .04 [.001, .08] .06 [.002, .09]
Low PPGO −.02 [−.04, .01] −.02 [−.05, .02]
High PPGO −.06 [−.10, −.02] −.08 [−.13, −.03]
Difference .04 [.001, .09] .06 [.01, .10]
Low PAGO −.01 [−.04, .01] −.02 [−.04, .01]
High PAGO −.06 [−.10, −.03] −.08 [−.03, −.15]
Difference .05 [.01, .10] .06 [−.02, −.11]

Note: The indirect effects were calculated by Monte Carlo approach with 20,000 repetitions.

and work accomplishment, which challenge stressors can facilitate.
Hindrance stressors primarily constrain personal growth and work
goals. As employees high in PPGO and PAGO assign a higher value to
achieving good performance and avoiding performance failures, they
are more likely to appraise hindrance stressors as hindering their
goals. Conversely, employees high in LGO are less prone to make
hindrance appraisal of hindrance stressors partly because they see the
stressors as a chance to develop coping skills. We obtained similar
findings at both between- and within-person levels, allowing us to
draw a stronger conclusion about the role of goal orientation.
The present study also provides one explanation for why recent
studies have lent mixed support to the opposite effects of challenge
and hindrance stressors on job performance, a basic tenet of the
CHM (e.g., Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019). We demonstrate that
appraisals intervene in the effects of those stressors, and this process
varies depending on employee goal orientation. Thus, a more nuanced
picture regarding the effects of these stressors emerges when
employee goal orientation and appraisals are taken into account. The
positive effects of challenge stressors on job performance are stron-
ger and more evident for employees high in LGO and PPGO because
they appraise challenge stressors as more challenging. The negative
effects of hindrance stressors on job performance are stronger and
more evident for employees high in PPGO and PAGO
(i.e., performance orientation) because these employees view
hindrance stressors as more hindering. Finally, the negative effects of
hindrance stressors become weaker for employees high in LGO
because these employees tend to appraise hindrance stressors as less
hindering. Altogether, by affecting the appraisal process, employee
goal orientation is an important boundary condition for the effects of
challenge and hindrance stressors on job performance. Without
considering which goals employees are oriented toward, we cannot
accurately pinpoint those effects.
The observed role of goal orientation in the stress process is
heuristic to the broader job stress literature. Much of the stress litera-
ture focuses mainly on what employees “can do” in stressful situa-
tions (e.g., Liu & Li, 2018). This is tied to secondary appraisal
(i.e., evaluation of one's coping potential) and coping behaviors. Job
demand and control theory (Karasek, 1979) argues that employees
are better able to cope with job stressors when they have greater job
control. But an individual may not fully exert the control to cope with
a stressor when it does not touch his/her desired goals. Thus, what
employees “want to do” also matters to the stress process. However,
14
F I G U R E 3 a & 3 b LGO and PPGO moderate the challenge stressor–challenge appraisal (left) and the hindrance stressor-hindrance appraisal
(right) relationships in Study 2
F I G U R E 3 c PAGO moderates the daily hindrance stressor-
hindrance appraisal relationship in Study 2
this notion has received little attention. By considering goal orienta-
tion, we provide intuitive insights into employees' stress experiences
and reactions. Our standpoint aligns with the cybernetic model of job
stress (Edwards, 1992), which argues that stress stems from the gap
between an individual's current state and desired state. We suggest
that goal orientation may resolve the inconsistent findings regarding
the effectiveness of personal control in affecting stressor-outcome
relationships (Stiglbauer, 2017).
The current study also enriches the goal orientation literature by
explicitly examining the appraisal mechanism through which goal orien-
tation differentiates employees' reactions to stressors. Goal orientation
has been found to influence the stressor-outcome relationships. For
instance, LGO was found to exacerbate the positive effect of challenge
stressors and reduce the negative effect of hindrance stressors on inno-
vation (Peng et al., 2019). Although goals affect the way employees
respond to a stressor, the research has not effectively elucidated why
the goals can make a difference in stress processes. The present study
complements this line of research as we show that employees with dif-
ferent goal orientations appraise challenge and hindrance stressors
quite differently and these differences subsequently affect their task
MA ET AL.
performance and work proactivity. Moreover, we demonstrate that goal
orientation affects employees' stress appraisals and performance in
response to challenge and hindrance stressors consistently at both
between- and within-person levels.
10.2 | Practical implications
Like Mazzola and Disselhorst (2019), we do not advocate increasing
challenge stressors to promote job performance, as previous studies
have suggested (e.g., Kim & Beehr, 2018; Wallace et al., 2009). Chal-
lenge stressors do not facilitate job performance in their own right.
Organizations may reap the benefits of challenge stressors when their
employees are high in LGO and PPGO due to their stronger propen-
sity to make challenge appraisal. Supervisors should thus keep
employees' goal orientation in mind when assigning challenge
demands. Recent research has found within-person variation in trait
goal orientation over time (e.g., 19–25 weeks) (Dierdorff, Surface,
Harman, Ellington, & Watson, 2018). Even if employees are low in
LGO and PPGO, organizations can still reinforce these goal orienta-
tions. A learning-oriented climate with tailored training and develop-
ment programs as well as higher incentives for learning can improve
LGO. Supervisors should also encourage employees to experiment
novel solutions and learn from failure, while rewarding employees
who have mastered new competencies and proactively engaged in
self-development (VandeWalle et al., 2019). Additionally, challenging
but attainable goals as well as recognizing top performers can improve
PPGO (Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004).
Supervisors must acknowledge that employees high in PPGO and
PAGO are more vulnerable to hindrance stressors due to their stron-
ger propensity to make hindrance appraisal of those stressors. Thus,
reinforcing employee PPGO is not recommended for organizations
with a high level of hindrance stressors. Organizations should manage
to eliminate those unfavorable stressors once and for all. For example,
organizations can cut red tape by reducing the chain of command and
optimizing inspection and report systems. Transparency in communi-
cation and decision-making can help reduce political maneuvering.
MA ET AL.
Supervisors should also ensure the coherence of demands imposed on
employees to reduce role conflict.
10.3 | Limitations and future research
We acknowledge a few limitations in the present study. First, we man-
aged to eliminate the shortcomings of cross-sectional design and
allowed temporal precedence between stressor/appraisal and job
performance. However, our design did not allow us to fully establish
causations between stressors, appraisals, and job performance. Future
studies should replicate our findings by using well-controlled experi-
ments to address this issue. On the other hand, we did not clearly
assess the mechanism linking appraisals to job performance. Although
we relied on the approach and avoidance framework to predict the
hypotheses, it is important to further identify which variables confer
the effects. Future studies can shift the focus from the appraisal
process to the coping process. It is helpful to study what coping strat-
egies are responsible for the effects of appraisals and what entail
more benefits for employee personal (e.g., well-being) and work
(e.g., performance) outcomes.
The assessment of goal orientation might be vulnerable to social
desirability (i.e., a tendency to present oneself in a favorable light),
which may also impact the results of this study (Tan & Hall, 2005).
However, we minimized social desirability by assuring data confi-
dentiality and by measuring goal orientation with a behavioral-based
instrument (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Future studies can collect data
on goal orientation of employees from their supervisors or
coworkers to further reduce social desirability. Additionally, research
also recommends measuring participants' social desirability and con-
trolling for its effect in statistical analysis to eliminate the contami-
nation (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Unfortunately, we did not assess
social desirability. But even if we did, this approach would be inap-
propriate for this study. This is because social desirability represents
a trait characteristic that has a conceptual overlap with certain per-
sonal factors including goal orientation (Tan & Hall, 2005; Zerbe &
Paulhus, 1987). For instance, PAGO predisposes a person to a
strong self-presentation concern about avoiding being judged as
incompetent (Tan & Hall, 2005). The shared variance between social
desirability and goal orientation is thus theoretically meaningful and
should not be attributed solely to rating bias (Zerbe
Paulhus, 1987). In this case, controlling for the effect of social desir-
ability can separate the meaningful variance from goal orientation,
which in turn can reduce predictive validity of goal orientation and
bias parameter estimation.
Future studies can test whether state goal orientation can affect
the stress process in addition to trait goal orientation. To reduce the
confounding issues, researchers can experimentally induce certain
goal orientations before exposing participants to challenge and hin-
drance stressors. Such an endeavor could extend our theoretical
notions and practical implications in a meaningful way. Additionally,
except for Liu and Li (2018), secondary appraisal (i.e., the evaluation
of coping potential) of challenge and hindrance stressors has not
15
received adequate attention. In addition to understanding the emer-
gence and functions of primary appraisal (i.e., challenge and hindrance
appraisal), future studies may assess how employees evaluate their
coping potential when facing challenge and hindrance stressors
(i.e., secondary appraisal), what factors affect secondary appraisal,
how secondary appraisal relates to stress outcomes, and whether sec-
ondary appraisal goes further than primary appraisal in affecting stress
outcomes.
Furthermore, the CHM literature focuses primarily on challenge
and hindrance stressors experienced by employees and how the
stressors relate to employees' own work outcomes. Obviously, super-
visors also encounter these stressors, and their stress experiences
may have crossover effects on employees' perceptions of stressors,
appraisals and work outcomes. It is important to test dyadic models to
investigate whether challenge stressors experienced by supervisors
translate into good results for employees, whether hindrance stressors
experienced by supervisors would result in negative employee
work outcomes, as well as plausible mechanisms underlying the
crossover effects.
11 | C O N CL U S I O N
The current study supports the moderating effect of goal orienta-
tion on stressor-appraisal relationships and the moderated mediation
model. We reveal sophisticated knowledge about the roles of indi-
vidual differences in affecting the appraisal process and consequent
employee work outcomes. The convergent results obtained at
between-person and within-person levels with various sources of
data greatly enhance the validity of our theoretical model. This
study inspires future studies and practices to better manage
employee job performance in the context of challenge and
hindrance stressors.
AC KNOW LEDG EME NT S
This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation
of China (grant number: 72002090 and 71802007) and by Project of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Chinese Ministry of Education (grant
number: 20XJC630005).
&
OR CID
Jie Ma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0477-7717
RE FE RE NCE S
Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical
innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 39, 423–438. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0044
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as medi-
ators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 354–362. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0031145
Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., &
Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies:
10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal
16
of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.
2053
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contex-
tual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Human Performance, 10, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327043hup1002_3
Brislin, R. W. (1985). The wording of translation of research instruments.
In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural
research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Byron, K., Peterson, S. J., Zhang, Z., & LePine, J. A. (2018). Realizing chal-
lenges and guarding against threats: Interactive effects of regulatory
focus and stress on performance. Journal of Management, 44,
3011–3037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316658349
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
Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative
feedback on tension and subsequent performance: The main and
interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019130
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
Dierdorff, E. C., Surface, E. A., Harman, R. P., Ellington, J. K., &
Watson, A. M. (2018). Ebb and flow of dispositional goal orientations:
Exploring the consequences of within-person variability. Journal of Busi-
ness and Psychology. Online advance.
Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17, 238–274.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279536
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motiva-
tion. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-006-9028-7
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.
1.218
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achieve-
ment goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S.,
Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods:
A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly
advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22, 969–1006.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their
impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con-
texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical
linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of
Management, 24, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920639802400504
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
285–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2018). Challenge and hindrance demands lead to
employees' health and behaviours through intrinsic motivation. Stress &
Health, 3, 367–378.
MA ET AL.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York: Springer.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational
Research Methods, 11, 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094428106296642
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test
of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explana-
tion 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
Liao, C., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., & Lin, S. H. (2020). Serving you depletes
me? A leader-centric examination of servant leader behaviors. Forthcom-
ing: Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206320906883
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
Ma, J., & Peng, Y. (2019). The performance costs of illegitimate tasks: The
role of job identity and flexible role orientation. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 110, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.012
Mazzola, J. J., & Disselhorst, R. (2019). Should we be “challenging”
employees?: A critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-
hindrance model of stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40,
949–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412
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
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic
examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.
1.128
Peng, Y., Zhang, W., Xu, X., Matthews, R., & Jex, S. (2019). When do work
stressors lead to innovative performance? An examination of the mod-
erating effects of learning goal orientation and job autonomy. Interna-
tional Journal of Stress Management, 26, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.
1037/str0000109
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM
framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods,
15, 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge
stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as anteced-
ents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38,
108–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2115
Rhee, Y. W., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and
individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group
social status as moderating contingency. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38, 813–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2168
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
Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and
hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28, 121–143. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.931378
MA ET AL. 17

Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related litera- commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
tures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227–239. behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). A
themes, and the emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 7, 233–269. https:// social-cognitive model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion, 8,
doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409189 281–290.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in orga-
theory. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual nizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review,
performance: a handbook in the psychology of management in organiza- 12, 250–264.
tions (pp. 3–25). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Ohly, S. (2013). Event-sampling methods in
occupational health psychology. In R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. E. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Tetrick (Eds.), Research. methods in occupational health psychology
(pp. 208–228). New York: Routledge.
Sonnentag, S., Reinecke, L., Mata, J., & Vorderer, P. (2018). Feeling Jie Ma is an associate professor of Applied Psychology at the
interrupted—Being responsive: How online messages relate to affect
School of Management, Jinan University (Guangzhou). He
at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 369–383.
Stiglbauer, B. (2017). Under what conditions does job control moderate received his Ph.D. in Applied Organizational Psychology from the
the relationship between time pressure and employee well-being? Hofstra University, New York. His current research focuses on job
Investigating the role of match and personal control beliefs. Journal of stress, stressor appraisals, and individual differences in stress
Organizational Behavior, 38, 730–748.
processes.
Tan, J. A., & Hall, R. J. (2005). The effects of social desirability bias on
applied measures of goal orientation. Personality and Individual Differ- Yisheng Peng is an assistant professor of Industrial and Organiza-
ences, 38, 1891–1902.
tional Psychology in the Department of Organizational Sciences
van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job
demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands- and Communicatin, George Washington University. His primary
resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of research interests are workplace mistreatment, stress coping, and
Applied Psychology, 101, 141–150. aging and older worker issues.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal
orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, Bo Wu is a graduate student at the School of Labor and Human
995–1015. Resources, Renmin University of China. His research interests
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (2001). The role of goal
include human resource practices and employee proactivity.
orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 629–640.
VandeWalle, D., Nerstad, C. G., & Dysvik, A. (2019). Goal orientation: A
review of the Miles Traveled and the Miles to Go. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 115–144. How to cite this article: Ma J, Peng Y, Wu B. Challenging or
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. hindering? The roles of goal orientation and cognitive
(2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating
appraisal in stressor-performance relationships. J Organ Behav.
influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, (94),
254–262. 2021;1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2503
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.
18 MA ET AL.

APPENDIX A.

TABLE A1 Summary and comparison of measurement models (study 1)

Models χ 2/df Δχ 2 RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Model 1: Hypothesized nine factor model 1192.61/909 .04 .92 .91 .06
a
Model 2: Alternative seven factor model 1544.25/924 351.64** .06 .82 .81 .09
Model 3: Alternative seven factor modelb 1669.73/924 477.12** .06 .79 .77 .10
c
Model 4: Alternative five factor model 1923.71/935 731.10** .07 .71 .70 .11
Model 5: Alternative five factor modeld 2216.95/939 1024.34** .08 .63 .61 .12
e
Model 6: Alternative one factor model 3228.16/945 2035.55** .11 .35 .32 .15
Model 7: Unmeasured latent method factor Modelf 1184.22/886 8.39 .04 .91 .92 .06

Notes: RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, SRMR = standardized root-mean-square
residual.
**p < .01. aThis model merged the items of challenge stressors and challenge appraisal into one factor and those of hindrance stressors and hindrance
appraisal into another factor.
b
This model merged the items of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors into one factor and those of challenge appraisal and hindrance appraisal into
another factor.
c
This model merged the items of learning goal orientation, performance prove goal orientation, and performance avoid goal orientation into one factor on
the basis of Model 3.
d
This model merged the items of task performance and work proactivity into one factor on the basis of Model 4.
e
This model merged all the items into one factor.
f
This model added two unmeasured latent method factors in addition to the nine hypothesized latent factors. Items rated by focal employees were merged
into one method factor, and items rated by focal employees' direct supervisors were merged into another method factor.

TABLE A2 Study 2: Summary of indirect effects at the between-person level

Dependent variables

Task performance Work proactivity

Predictors Effect Monte Carlo 95%CI Effect Monte Carlo 95%CI
Challenge stressors
Indirect effect via challenge appraisal .14 [.09, .20] .22 [.13, .30]
Conditional indirect effect via challenge appraisal low LGO .09 [.04, .17] .15 [.08, .25]
High LGO .18 [.10, .27] .29 [.18, .43]
Difference .09 [.01, .18] .14 [.01, .29]
Low PPGO .09 [.02, .16] .13 [.03, .25]
High PPGO .19 [.10, .32] .31 [.17, .47]
Difference .10 [.03, .20] .17 [.04, .30]
Low PAGO .15 [.10, .25] .25 [.15, .38]
High PAGO .12 [.06, .19] .20 [.09, .31]
Difference .03 [−.01, .09] .05 [−.03, .11]
Hindrance stressors
Indirect effect via hindrance appraisal −.06 [−.11, −.01] −.12 [−.21, −.07]
Conditional indirect effect via hindrance appraisal low LGO −.08 [−.16, −.01] −.15 [−.26, −.06]
High LGO −.04 [−.09, −.002] −.08 [−.14, −.02]
Difference .04 [.002, .08] .07 [.01, .13]
Low PPGO −.04 [−.10, −.01] −.09 [−.16, −.02]
High PPGO −.08 [−.13, −.02] −.14 [−.25, −.08]
Difference .04 [.001, .09] .05 [.01, .12]
Low PAGO −.05 [−.04, .01] −.09 [−.18, −.04]
High PAGO −.07 [−.09, −.03] −.13 [−.22, −.06]
Difference .03 [.001, .06] .04 [.001, .08]

Note: The indirect effects were calculated by Monte Carlo approach with 20,000 repetitions.
MA ET AL. 19

F I G U R E A 1 a & A 1 b LGO and PPGO moderate the challenge stressor–challenge appraisal (left) and the hindrance stressor-hindrance
appraisal (right) relationships at the between person-level in Study 2

F I G U R E A 1 c PAGO moderates the hindrance stressor-hindrance

appraisal relationship at the between person-level in Study 2

View publication stats