The Journal of Psychology

Interdisciplinary and Applied

ISSN: 0022-3980 (Print) 1940-1019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

What Differentiates Employees' Job Performance

Under Stressful Situations: The Role of General
Self-Efficacy

Chang-Qin Lu, Dan-Yang Du & Xiao-Min Xu

To cite this article: Chang-Qin Lu, Dan-Yang Du & Xiao-Min Xu (2016): What Differentiates
Employees' Job Performance Under Stressful Situations: The Role of General Self-Efficacy, The
Journal of Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1203277

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1203277

Published online: 15 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjrl20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 19 July 2016, At: 09:31
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
2016, VOL. 0, NO. 0, 1–12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1203277

What Differentiates Employees’ Job Performance Under

Stressful Situations: The Role of General Self-Efficacy
Chang-Qin Lua, Dan-Yang Dub, and Xiao-Min Xua
a
Peking University; bErasmus University Rotterdam

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

The aim of this research is to verify the two-dimensional challenge– Received 30 October 2015
hindrance stressor framework in the Chinese context, and investigate Accepted 14 June 2016
the moderating effect of general self-efficacy in the stress process. KEYWORDS
Data were collected from 164 Chinese employee–supervisor dyads. challenge stressors; general
The results demonstrated that challenge stressors were positively self-efficacy; hindrance
related to job performance while hindrance stressors were negatively stressors; job performance
related to job performance. Furthermore, general self-efficacy
strengthened the positive relationship between challenge stressors
and job performance, whereas the attenuating effect of general self-
efficacy on the negative relationship between hindrance stressors and
job performance was nonsignificant. These findings qualify the two-
dimensional challenge–hindrance stressor framework, and support the
notion that employees with high self-efficacy benefit more from the
positive effect of challenge stressors in the workplace. By investigating
the role of an individual difference variable in the challenge–hindrance
stressor framework, this research provides a more accurate picture of
the nature of job stress, and enhances our understanding of the job
stressor–job performance relationship.

Job stress-related issues have received much attention in recent years from scholars and
practitioners because job stress is increasing in the workplace (Ganster & Rosen, 2013). The
purposes of the present study are twofold. First, we test the two-dimensional challenge–hin-
drance stressor framework in terms of job performance as an outcome in Chinese society.
Since Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, and Boudreau (2000) proposed the challenge–hin-
drance stressor framework, most published empirical studies on the topic have been con-
ducted in English-speaking countries (e.g., Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009; Wallace, Edwards,
Arnold, Frazier, & Finch, 2009; Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013). Thus, comparative studies are
needed to qualify the framework in non-English speaking countries such as China. Further-
more, China has more than 20% of the world’s population, and people are experiencing high
levels of job stress during social and economic transition and development (Siu, Lu, & Spec-
tor, 2007; Wang, Lu, & Siu, 2015). Chinese employees constantly have to deal with

CONTACT Chang-Qin Lu lucq@pku.edu.cn School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Labora-
tory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, No.5 Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100871, the People’s
Republic of China.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vjrl.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 2 C.-Q. LU ET AL.

challenges and their associated stressors in the fast-paced, rapidly developing business envi-
ronment. They also experience constraints or hindrance stressors at the same time, due to
the changing social environment. Thus, China offers an ideal setting to study the effect of
challenge–hindrance stressors. Empirically testing the challenge–hindrance stressor frame-
work with a Chinese sample will make a significant contribution to the validation and gener-
alization of previous studies in this area. Second, we answer the call of LePine, Podsakoff,
and LePine (2005) by highlighting the role of general self-efficacy in the challenge–hindrance
stressor framework. By investigating the role of a particular individual difference variable,
along with challenge stressors and hindrance stressors, our study provides a more accurate
picture regarding the nature and effects of job stressors on job performance. Thus, our find-
ings will enrich the challenge–hindrance stressor framework literature.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

Theory and Hypotheses

Associations Between Challenge–Hindrance Stressors and Job Performance
The findings to date concerning the relationship between stressors and performance have
been mixed. Some have found a significantly negative linear relationship; others have found
no significant relationship, while still others have reported a positive linear relationship (e.g.,
Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; Rosen, Chang, Diurdjevic, & Eatough, 2010).
Although an inverted U-shaped relationship has been reported, the empirical evidence is
very limited (Rosen et al., 2010). To explain the inconsistent findings concerning the rela-
tionship between job stress and performance, Cavanaugh and colleagues (2000) proposed
the challenge–hindrance stressor framework. This framework divides stressors into two
types, challenge stressors and hindrance stressors. Challenge stressors (“good stressors”) are
defined as “work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have
associated potential gains for individuals” (e.g., high workload, time pressure, job scope, and
high responsibility), while hindrance stressors (“bad stressors”) are defined as “work-related
demands or circumstances that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual’s work
achievement and that do not tend to be associated with potential gains for the individual”
(e.g., organizational politics, red tape, role ambiguity, and job insecurity) (Cavanaugh et al.,
2000, p. 68). The different associations between these two types of stressors and job perfor-
mance have been supported fully or partially by several empirical studies (e.g., Bakker &
Sanz-Vergel, 2013; LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004; Pearsall et al., 2009; Wallace et al.,
2009; Zhang, LePine, Buckman, & Wei, 2014) and two meta-analytical studies (LePine et al.,
2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2005).
Nevertheless, the majority of the research on the challenge–hindrance stressor framework
has been conducted in Western societies. Few studies have been conducted in China (see
Yuan, Li, &, Lin, 2014; Zhang & Lu, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014 for exceptions). Yuan and col-
leagues’ study (2014) examined the effects of challenge–hindrance stressors on Chinese
employees’ safety performance. Zhang and Lu’s study (2009) examined the effects of chal-
lenge–hindrance stressors on Chinese employees’ well-being and work attitudes. Only Zhang
and colleagues (2014) tested employees’ job performance as an outcome. Based on the chal-
lenge–hindrance stressor framework, they developed new scales, and found that hindrance
stressors were significantly negatively related to supervisor-rated job performance, whereas
the positive relationship between challenge stressors and job performance was
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 3

non-significant. Therefore, it is necessary to provide more evidence supporting the chal-

lenge–hindrance stressor framework by using the criterion of performance, as rated by
supervisors. Demerouti and Bakker (2011) also pointed out that “whether the differentiation
between challenge and hindrance demands is valid is still unknown as there is not sufficient
empirical evidence on this issue” (p. 4). We examine the relationships between challenge–
hindrance stressors and job performance by looking at sample of Chinese employees. In light
of the existing evidence, we expect to observe the differentiated effects of challenge stressors
and hindrance stressors on Chinese employees’ job performance, and propose the following
hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Challenge stressors are positively related to job performance.
Hypothesis 2: Hindrance stressors are negatively related to job performance.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

Moderating Effects of General Self-Efficacy

According to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional theory of stress framework, a
stress reaction results from the interaction between a person and the environment. Thus,
some individual difference variables could influence the ways individuals respond to chal-
lenge–hindrance stressors. In their meta-analytical study, LePine and colleagues (2005)
found that a significant amount of variability needed to be accounted for in explaining the
correlations between challenge–hindrance stressors and performance. They thus proposed
that “individual difference explained some of this variability … such as core self-evaluation
… and may play a role in the ways people respond to stressful work demands” (p. 771). As a
main component of core-self evaluations (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012; Judge
& Bono, 2001), general self-efficacy “refers to global confidence in one’s coping ability across
a wide range of demanding or novel situations” (Schwarzer, B€aßler, Kwiatek, Schroder, &
Zhang, 1997, p. 71). General self-efficacy has been proven to be a universal- and individual-
level construct that significantly affects human functioning across cross-cultural contexts
(e.g., Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona, & Schwarzer, 2005; Schwarzer et al., 1997; Scholz, Do~ na,
Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). Some studies have examined the moderating role of self-efficacy
on the stress process. However, the findings to date are inconsistent. Some studies have sup-
ported the buffering effect of self-efficacy (e.g., Siu et al., 2007; Lu, Siu, & Cooper, 2005), and
others have not (e.g., Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Xie, 2000).
Still others found that self-efficacy buffered the negative effects of some (but not all) job
stressors on worker’s well-being and attitudes (e. g., Jex & Bliese, 1999; Siu, Spector, Cooper,
& Lu, 2005; Zhang & Lu, 2009). One of main possible reasons is that researchers have
focused on different types of stressors; different stressors have opposing effects within the
challenge–hindrance stressor framework (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005). We
extend the previous studies by taking job performance as an outcome variable.
Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) framework emphasizes that individuals make two
appraisals of their environmental stressors, a primary appraisal and a secondary
appraisal. The primary appraisal concerns whether an event constitutes a threat or
challenge to themselves, and the secondary appraisal is a judgment of whether they have
the coping resources to effectively deal with the event. It has been suggested that general
self-efficacy influences such two-step appraisals (e.g., Chang et al., 2012). Because
individuals with high general self-efficacy have strong confidence in their ability to exert
control (Bandura, 1997), they prefer to set more challenging goals and strongly believe
 4 C.-Q. LU ET AL.

that they have the ability to successfully control their environment and accomplish their
goals (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). Thus, they perceive challenge
stressors as more beneficial or positive and hindrance stressors as less threatening or
negative. Mohammed and Billings (2002) also found that high self-efficacy could make
individuals perceive more situational opportunities and fewer situational threats.
Furthermore, individuals with high general self-efficacy have more effective ways of
coping or more resources to deal with stressful situations and perform well, because
general self-efficacy “enables individuals to adapt effectively to novel and adverse
environments” (Chen et al., 2001, p. 77) in the workplace. High self-efficacy is positively
associated with active or approach-oriented methods, and negatively associated with
passive or avoidance-oriented behavior (e.g., Chang et al., 2012; Jex et al., 2001). Active
approaches lead to positive outcomes, whereas the passive approaches tend to lead to
negative outcomes. Thus, general self-efficacy may influence how employees react to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

challenge–hindrance stressors. Zhang and Lu (2009) found that general self-efficacy

strengthened the positive relationship between challenge stressors and job satisfaction,
and weakened the negative relationship between hindrance stressors and job satisfaction
as well. Unfortunately, they did not examine job performance as an outcome.
On the basis of the aforementioned theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, we
expect general self-efficacy to have different moderating roles on the effects of challenge
stressors versus hindrance stressors on job performance. Specifically, general self-efficacy
may strengthen the positive effect of challenge stressors on job performance and weaken the
negative effect of hindrance stressors on job performance.
Hypothesis 3: General self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between chal-
lenge stressors and job performance, such that the positive relationship between challenge
stressors and job performance is stronger for employees with high self-efficacy than those
with low self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 4: General self-efficacy negatively moderates the relationship between hin-
drance stressors and job performance, such that the negative relationship between hindrance
stressors and job performance is weaker for employees with high self-efficacy than those
with low self-efficacy.

Method
Participants and Procedures
The current research was approved by our institutional review committee. We distributed a
self-administered questionnaire to salespersons and their supervisors at an insurance com-
pany in China. All of the participants took part voluntarily and were told the research pur-
pose of the survey and guaranteed the confidentiality of their responses. They were asked to
write their staff numbers so that their responses could be paired with their supervisors’ eval-
uations of their job performances. We received 164 valid matched questionnaires after dis-
tributing 215 questionnaires to subordinates and their supervisors (76.3% response rate).
Demographic information was also collected. The average age of the final sample was
29.8 years (SD D 5.6), and the average company tenure was 7.5 years (SD D 5.1); 84 (51.2%)
were female, 146 (89%) were non-management salespersons, and 48 (29.3%) had a bache-
lor’s degree or above.
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 5

Measures
Challenge–hindrance stressors. We used the eleven-item challenge and hindrance-related
stressor measure developed by Cavanaugh et al. (2000), comprising six challenge-related items
(e.g., “The scope of responsibility my position entails”) and five hindrance-related items (e.g.,
“The amount of red tape I need to go through to get my job done”). These items were rated
from 1 (no stress) to 5 (great deal of stress), with a high score indicating a high level of stress.
Previous studies indicated that the Chinese versions of scales are reliable, and the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients for challenge stressors, and hindrance stressors are from .79 to 92, and .75
to .82, respectively (Yuan et al., 2014; Zhang & Lu, 2009).
Job performance. Because our sample consisted of salespersons, we adapted thirteen items
from the Salesperson Performance Scale to measure two aspects of sales performance,
“achieving overall objective performance” and “sales presentation” (Behrman & Perreault,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

1982). We asked supervisors to evaluate their subordinates’ performance. There were seven
items measuring overall objective performance, and the sample item was “Producing a high
market share for the company in his territory”; there were six items measuring sales presen-
tation, and the sample item was “Listening attentively to identify and understand the real
concerns of customers.” The Chinese version of the scale has good reliability, with a Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficient of .83 (Wang et al., 2015). These items were rated from 1 (needs
improvement) to 5 (outstanding), with a high score indicating high job performance.
General self-efficacy. The ten-item general self-efficacy scale (Schwarzer et al., 1997) was used to
measure beliefs about personal efficacy in diverse situations. General self-efficacy has been shown
to be a universal construct (Luszczynska et al., 2005; Scholz et al., 2002), and its Chinese version is
reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .91 and .90, respectively (Schwarzer et al., 1997; Siu
et al., 2007). The sample item was “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected
events.” A six-point response scale ranging from 1 (absolutely incorrect) to 6 (absolutely correct)
was used, with a high score indicating a high level of self-efficacy.

Results
Reliability and Validity Analyses
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables, and the
alpha coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of challenge stressors, hindrance stres-
sors, general self-efficacy, and job performance measures were .81, .72, .88, and .89,

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Main Variables (N D 164).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 9

1. Challenge stressors 2.14 .71 (.81)

2. Hindrance stressors 2.41 .71 .46

(.72)
3. General self-efficacy 4.16 .75 ¡.14 ¡.12 (.88)
4. Job performance 3.03 .56 .49

.07 .01 (.89)
5. Gender — — ¡.14 .02 ¡.01 ¡.07 —
6. Tenure 7.50 5.13 .02 .01 .06 .04 ¡.01 —
9. Contract type — — ¡.03 .00 .06 .14 ¡.11 .04 —

Note. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities are in parentheses on the diagonal. Gender: 0 D male, 1 D female; Tenure: years of working
in the current company; Contract type: 0 D fixed term, 1 D temporary.


p < .05.

p < .01.
 6 C.-Q. LU ET AL.

respectively. Challenge stressors (M D 2.14) were positively related to job performance

(M D 3.03; r D .49, p < .01), and hindrance stressors (M D 2.41) were not related to job per-
formance (r D .07, p > .05), which is similar to LePine et al.’s (2004) findings. Moreover, the
relationships between general self-efficacy (r D .01, p > .05), gender (r D ¡.07, p > .05), ten-
ure (r D .04, p > .05), and contract type (r D .14, p > .05) and job performance did not reach
statistical significance. In line with previous research (e.g., LePine et al., 2004; Zhang & Lu,
2009), we used hierarchical regression analyses to examine the relationships between chal-
lenge stressors, hindrance stressors, and job performance, and the moderation of general
self-efficacy, controlling for employees’ gender, tenure, and contract type to avoid alternative
explanations for their relationships.
The statistical packages SPSS 19.0 and LISREL 8.80 were used for the data analysis. The
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted via structural equation modeling to
examine the validity of our measures. A series of CFAs was conducted to ensure that the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

results were not influenced by common method bias. We compared the proposed four-factor
model (challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, general self-efficacy, and job performance)
with the three-factor model (combining challenge stressors and hindrance stressors because
of high correlation) and the one-factor model (combining the four factors). The results of
Table 2 show that the four-factor model fit the data best and was superior to the three- and
one-factor models. All of the items loading on their respective latent factors were significant
and above .45. These results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of our measures.

Testing the Hypotheses

A series of hierarchical regression analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) were con-
ducted to test the direct effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on job performance,
and the moderating effects of general self-efficacy, while controlling for organizational ten-
ure, education, and contract type. We excluded age, which is highly correlated with tenure
(r D .85, p < .01). In addition, we centered the predictor variables and multiplied them to
form the interaction terms (Cohen et al., 2003).
In the regression analyses, the controlled variables were entered in the first step; the chal-
lenge stressors, hindrance stressors, and general self-efficacy were entered in the second step,
and the interaction terms (challenge stressors £ general self-efficacy or hindrance stressors
£ general self-efficacy) were entered in the third step. In the area of challenge–hindrance
stressor research, scholars (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2004; Wallace et al.,
2009; Zhang et al., 2014) have clearly stated that both challenge stressors and hindrance
stressors should be simultaneously included in the same models to better understand their
unique effects on outcomes. Thus, we included both as predictors in the second step.

Table 2. Model Fit Results for Confirmatory Factor Analyses (N D 164).

Model x2 df Dx2 Ddf GFI NFI CFI RMSEA SRMR

1.Proposed four-factor model 99.89 71 – .92 .94 .98 .05 .04

2.Three-factor model 191.76 74 91.87

(2 vs. 1) 3 .86 .88 .92 .09 .08
4.One-factor model 1053.19 77 953.30

(3 vs. 1) 6 .52 .49 .51 .28 .22

Note.
p < .05.

p < .01.

 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 7

As Table 3 shows, challenge stressors were positively associated with job performance
(b D .67, p < .01), whereas hindrance stressor were negatively associated with job perfor-
mance (b D ¡.22, p < .01). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were both supported by the
results.
Moreover, the results in Table 3 show that general self-efficacy interacted with challenge–
hindrance stressors to influence employees’ job performance, and the effect size (Cohen’s f2)
was .02, explaining 2 percent of the variance in job performance. More specifically, general
self-efficacy significantly moderated the positive relationship between challenge stressors
and job performance (b D .14, p < .05), but its moderating effect on the negative relation-
ship between hindrance stressors and job performance was non-significant (b D ¡.08,
p D n.s.). A post hoc analysis of the simple slope was conducted to interpret the interaction
effects. We tested the hypothesis that a simple slope difference was significant between a
high group (one standard deviation above the mean) and a low group (one standard devia-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

tion below the mean). A graphic of the simple slope was also drawn to further demonstrate
the moderating effect.
We plot the significant interaction in Figure 1. Post hoc analyses of the simple slopes
demonstrated that the positive relationship between challenge stressors and job performance
strongly increased when general self-efficacy was high (b D 6.35, t D 7.04, p < .05) rather
than when general self-efficacy was low (b D 3.99, t D 4.97, p < .05). Furthermore, the result
of a simple slopes difference test was significant (t D 2.00, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3
was supported by the results, but Hypothesis 4 was not.

Discussion
The results show that challenge stressors were positively related to job performance, whereas
hindrance stressors were negatively related to job performance. Our findings are in line with
those of previous studies (e.g., LePine et al., 2005; Wallace et al., 2009). It should be noted
that the effect of hindrance stressors on job performance seems small (b D ¡.22, p < .01),
compared with the effect of challenge stressors on job performance (b D .67, p < .01).

Table 3. Multiple Regressions of Hypothesized Relationships (N D 164).

Job Performance
Standard regression coefficients

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Step 1 Gender ¡.06

Tenure .04
Contract type .08
Step 2 Challenge stressors .67


Hindrance stressors ¡.22


General self-efficacy .13
Step 3 Challenge stressors £ General self-efficacy .14

Hindrance stressors £ General self-efficacy ¡.08
Adjusted R2 ¡.01 .34 .36
4R2 .01 .35

.02

Note. Gender: 0 D male, 1 D female; Tenure: years of working in the current company; Contract type: 0 D fixed term,
1 D temporary.


p < .05.

p < .01.
 8 C.-Q. LU ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

Figure 1. Interactive effect of challenge stressors and general self-efficacy on job performance (N D 164).
Note. Low challenge stressors represented 1 SD below the mean, while high challenge stressors repre-
sented 1 SD above the mean.

Nevertheless, our finding of the hindrance stressors-job performance relationship (b D ¡.22,

p < .01) is very similar to the results of Wallace et al.’s (2009) empirical study (b D ¡.25,
p < .05) and LePine et al.’s (2005) meta-analytical study (b D ¡.27, p < .01). In short, the
findings provide evidence from a Chinese sample that supports the validity of the two-
dimensional challenge–hindrance stressors framework in the workplace (Cavanaugh et al.,
2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007). Due to the differentiated effects of challenge stressors and hin-
drance stressors on job performance, mixed results arise when researchers measure different
types of stressors, and the differentiated effects are very likely to be cancelled out when two
different stressors are collapsed into a one-dimensional measure. Thus, the challenge–hin-
drance stressor framework actually offers an explanation for the inconsistent relationship
between job stress and job performance (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005).
Moreover, by integrating transactional stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) with the
challenge–hindrance stressor framework (Cavanaugh et al., 2000), we have identified general
self-efficacy as an important individual difference variable that moderates the differentiated
effects of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors on job performance. We found that
high self-efficacy made employees perform better when encountering high levels of challenge
stressors. This is in line with Raub and Liao’s recent finding (2012) that general self-efficacy
increase employees’ customer service performance in a work environment offering higher
levels of challenge and requiring greater initiative service. However, we found that general
self-efficacy’s buffering effect on the relationship between hindrance stressors and job per-
formance was non-significant. One possible reason is that hindrance stressors, such as orga-
nizational politics, red tape, and job insecurity, tend to be outside of personal control
(LePine et al., 2005; Pearsall et al., 2009). The empirical evidence demonstrated that high
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 9

self-efficacy may not lead to positive outcomes if one has no control over the situation
(Schaubroeck et al., 2000). Future research is needed to address this issue.
More importantly, we answered LePine and colleagues’ (2005) call to investigate the role of
individual differences, and found that general self-efficacy explained some of the variance
(4R2 D .02) in the relationship between challenge stressors and job performance. To date,
there is still scant research exploring the interplay of people and environments featuring
challenge versus hindrance stressors, with the exception of two studies (i.e., Rodell & Judge,
2009; Zhang & Lu, 2009) examining the interactional effects of individual difference variables
and challenge–hindrance stressors on well-being and work attitudes. Building on Rodell and
Judge’s study, we extended to examine the interaction effects of a person’s self-efficacy and
challenge–hindrance stressors on job performance. Our findings thus provide insight into how
individuals may respond to different types of stressors and help to comprehensively explain
the challenge–hindrance stress process. This is our theoretical contribution. Although the buff-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

ering effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between hindrance stressors and job perfor-
mance was not supported, we found that self-efficacy strengthened the positive relationship
between challenge stressors and job performance. To some extent, our findings imply that the
measures of different stressors could explain the previous inconsistent findings about the
moderation of self-efficacy among stress process. This is another contribution of our study.
The results have practical implications for stress management. Traditionally, work stress
has been viewed as a relatively negative phenomenon; however, some stress can lead to bene-
fits for employees (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Work stressors should be distinguished because
some stressors (i.e., challenge stressors) lead to good outcomes whereas others (i.e., hin-
drance stressors) lead to bad outcomes. Thus, individual-level and organizational-level dif-
ferentiated stress management practices and coping strategies are recommended. For
example, Hargrove, Becker, and Hargrove (2015) suggested employers to generate positive
stress by offering employees challenging work through certain human resource development
intervention or practice. Moreover, it is recommended that organizations select individuals
with high levels of self-efficacy for challenging jobs, while motivating these employees to
meet their challenges, because these challenges can lead to good performance.
There are also limitations to this study. Although data from different sources was col-
lected, our cross-sectional design prohibited causal inferences. Additional longitudinal stud-
ies would strengthen the inferences found in this study. Another limitation is that we did
not include the variables of stress appraisals and coping. Scholars have begun to investigate
the role of cognitive appraisals of stress within the challenge–hindrance stressor framework
(e.g., Edwards, Franco-Watkins, Cullen, Howell, & Acuff, 2014). Future studies need to con-
sider how an individual selects certain coping methods as part of Lazarus and Folkman’s
(1984) appraisal process, which is critically important in this area of research.
In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that challenge stressors promote employees’ job
performance, whereas hindrance stressors lower employees’ job performance, and employees
with high self-efficacy perform better when meeting challenge stressors. By investigating the
role of an individual difference variable within the challenge–hindrance stressor framework,
we integrate the framework (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) with the transactional theory of stress
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This is an important step in developing a more comprehensive
picture of the interactions between people and different types of stressful environment
(i.e., environments that feature challenge versus hindrance stressors) that will improve our
understanding of the job stress process.
 10 C.-Q. LU ET AL.

Author Notes
Chang-Qin Lu is an associate professor at School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking Uni-
versity, China. His research focuses on work stress, with interests in the jointed roles of self-efficacy
and workplace social support among stress process, job insecurity, spillover and crossover effects of
work-family conflict/balance, and issues in cross-cultural stress research.

Dan-Yang Du graduated from School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences at Peking University.
She is currently a PhD student in the Department of Psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam in
the Netherlands. Her research interests include stress management, work family interface, and work
engagement.

Xiao-Min Xu is currently a master student in School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking
University. Her research interests include organizational justice, and job insecurity.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

Funding
This research was fully supported by the grant from Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental
Health (Project No. Z151100001615053), and the grant from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Project No.71271005).

References
Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hin-
drance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 397–409. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2013.06.008
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Behrman, D. N., & Perreault, W. D. (1982). Measuring the performance of industrial salespersons.
Journal of Business Research, 10, 355–370. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(82)90039-X
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examina-
tion of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self- evaluations: A
review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81–128. doi:10.1177/
0149206311419661
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 4, 62–83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future
research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1–9.
Edwards, B. D., Franco-Watkins, A. M., Cullen, K. L., Howell, J. W., & Acuff, R. E. (2014).Unifying the
challenge-hindrance and sociocognitive models of stress. International Journal of Stress Manage-
ment, 21, 162–185. doi:10.1037/a0034730
Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 39, 1085–1122. doi:10.1177/0149206313475815
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and
job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61, 227–271.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x
Hargrove, M. B., Becker, W. S., & Hargrove, D. F. (2015). The HRD eustress model generating positive
stress with challenging work. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 279–298. doi:10.1177/
1534484315598086
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 11

Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors:
A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349–361. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.349
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor–strain
relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 401–409.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.401
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits - self-esteem, gen-
eralized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability - with job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.80
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships
with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
883–891. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883
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
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775. doi:10.5465/

AMJ.2005.18803921
Lu, C. Q., Siu, O. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). Managers’ occupational stress in China: The role of self-
efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 569–578. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.012
Luszczynska, A., Gutierrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in various domains
of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40,
80–89. doi:10.1080/00207590444000041
Mohammed, S., & Billings, R. S. (2002). The effect of self-efficacy and issue characteristics on threat
and opportunity categorization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1253–1275. doi:10.1111/
j.1559-1816.2002.tb01435.x
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in
teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 109, 18–28. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor- hindrance
stressor relationships with job attitude, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
Raub, S., & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate
and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 651–667. doi:10.1037/a0026736
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. doi:10.1037/a0016752
Rosen, C. C., Chang, C. -H., Djurdjevic, E., & Eatough, E. M. (2010). Occupational stressors and per-
formance: An updated review and recommendations. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),
Research in occupational stress and well being (Vol. 8, pp. 1–60). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Xie, J. L. (2000). Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping
responses to stressors and control: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 512–
525. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.512
Scholz, U., Do~ na, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct?
Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 242–
251. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242
Schwarzer, R., B€aßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schroder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic
self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-efficacy
Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 69–88. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.
tb01096.x
Siu O. L., Lu, C. Q., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Employee’s well-being in Greater China: The direct and
moderating effects of general self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 288–
301. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00255.x
 12 C.-Q. LU ET AL.

Siu, O. L., Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Lu, C. Q. (2005). Work Stress, self-efficacy, Chinese work
values and work well-being in Hong Kong and Beijing. International Journal of Stress Management,
12, 274–288. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.3.274
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnald, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, M. D. (2009). Work stressors, role-
based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 254–262. doi:10.1037/a0013090
Wang, H. J., Lu, C. Q., & Siu, O. L. (2015). Job insecurity and performance: The moderating role of
organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100, 1249–1258. doi:10.1037/a0038330
Yuan, Z., Li, Y., & Lin, J. (2014). Linking challenge and hindrance stress to safety performance: The
moderating effect of core self-evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 154–159.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.025
Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It’s not fair… or is it? The role of justice
and leadership in explaining work stressor-job performance relationships. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 57, 675–697. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.1110
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:31 19 July 2016

Zhang, Y. L., & Lu, C. Q. (2009). Relationships between challenge stressor-hindrance stressor and
employees’ work-related attitudes and behavior: The role of general self-efficacy. Acta Psychological
Sinica, 41, 501–509. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.00501