REVIEW

published: 05 November 2020

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560346

A Review of the
Challenge-Hindrance Stress Model:
Recent Advances, Expanded
Paradigms, and Recommendations
for Future Research
Kristin A. Horan* , Wheeler H. Nakahara, Michael J. DiStaso and Steve M. Jex
Psychology Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States

Since its introduction approximately 20 years ago, the Challenge-Hindrance Stress

Model (CHM) has been widely accepted both among academic and practitioner
audiences. The model posits that workplace stressors can be grouped into two
categories. Hindrance stressors will interfere with performance or goals, while challenge
stressors contribute to performance opportunities. These two categories of stressors
are theorized to exhibit differential relationships with strain, with hindrance stressors
Edited by:
being more consistently linked to psychological, physical, or behavioral strain compared
Joseph Mazzola, to challenge stressors. Despite the popularity of this model, recent evidence suggests
Meredith College, United States that the proposed differential relationship hypothesis has not consistently held true for
Reviewed by: all types of strain. Thus, a reexamination or modification of this paradigm is clearly
Kimberly E. O’Brien,
Central Michigan University, warranted. In the present review, we describe existing evidence surrounding the CHM
United States and describe the rationale for a shifting paradigm. We outline recent advances in
Jan Christopher Cwik,
University of Cologne, Germany
research using the CHM, such as novel moderators and mediators, the need to explicitly
*Correspondence:
measure challenge and hindrance appraisal and differentiate between hindrance and
Kristin A. Horan threat appraisal, the dynamic nature of these appraisals over time, and the recognition
kristin.horan@ucf.edu that a single stressor could be appraised simultaneously as both a challenge and
Specialty section:
a hindrance. Finally, we provide recommendations and future research directions for
This article was submitted to scholars examining stress and stress management through a CHM lens, including
Organizational Psychology,
recommendations related to study design, the measurement of stressors, the integration
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology of CHM with other models of stress, and interventions for stress management.
Received: 08 May 2020 Keywords: appraisal, occupational stress model, stressor, challenge, hindrance
Accepted: 15 October 2020
Published: 05 November 2020
Citation: Researchers interested in understanding and decreasing occupational stress depend upon theories
Horan KA, Nakahara WH, and models to ground their investigations of the relationships between stressors and strains
DiStaso MJ and Jex SM (2020) A (e.g., Sonnentag and Frese, 2003). The Challenge Hindrance Model of Stress (CHM; Cavanaugh
Review of the Challenge-Hindrance et al., 2000), a model that differentiates between types of stressors and their proposed differential
Stress Model: Recent Advances,
relationships with work outcomes, is well-known and widely cited within the occupational stress
Expanded Paradigms,
and Recommendations for Future
literature (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019). While some researchers offer a more critical view of
Research. Front. Psychol. 11:560346. the support and generalizability of the model (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019), others argue for the
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560346 value of the framework (O’Brien and Beehr, 2019). However, conflicting views do not necessitate

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

that we abandon this framework, but instead highlight an (Xie and Johns, 1995). In recent years, with the growth of the
opportunity to challenge and reshape an existing paradigm. positive psychology movement, this model has been used as a
Recent advances in the occupational stress literature offer rationale for arguing that some stressors may actually result in
insight into a more nuanced understanding of the relationships positive outcomes for employees (e.g., Britt and Jex, 2015).
and processes proposed within CHM. In this review, we begin Similar with this notion that strains vary as a function of
by describing the CHM and its historical roots, review existing stressor intensity or duration, Selye (1956) suggested that stressor
evidence surrounding the model, and describe the need for a type determined the resulting strain. He coined terms that later
paradigm shift within the literature. We then describe recent become analogous to hindrance stressors and challenge stressors.
advances in the CHM literature, highlighting studies with “Distress” was the term used to refer to stressful situations that
conceptual or design features that could facilitate this shift. We exceed individuals’ resources, and “eustress” referred to stressful
conclude with recommendations for future research that builds situations that engage and energize individuals (Selye, 1974).
upon the CHM framework. Another historical foundation of the CHM is the widely
known Job Demands-Control (JD-C) model of stress developed
by Robert Karasek (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990).
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CHM The most widely known proposition of the JD-C model is
that stress is highest when job demands are high and job
CHM Description and Historical Roots control (termed “job decision latitude” by Karasek) is low. In
The basic premise of the CHM framework is that stressors can essence, what Karasek proposed is that job demands represent
be conceptualized into the two broad categories of Challenge physiological challenges to the body and will result in strain when
Stressors and Hindrance Stressors. Challenge stressors are those there is no control over how to meet those demands. In more
that may result in strain, but at the same time, are energizing recent years it has been proposed that this interaction occurs only
and provide opportunities for feelings of accomplishment, as under conditions of low social support.
well as growth and development (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). In A less widely cited proposition of the JD-C model (see Kain
most treatments of the CHM, stressors such as workload or and Jex, 2010), and one that bears directly on the CHM, is that
impending deadlines are assumed to be challenge stressors. In some jobs are high in demands and at the same time are high
contrast, hindrance stressors are those that result in strain, but in job control (called “Active” jobs). Such jobs are demanding,
in contrast to challenge stressors, are typically not energizing yet at the same time potentially rewarding, because employees in
and do not provide employees with opportunities for growth such jobs have the discretion in how to address those demands.
and development (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). A good exemplar of As a result, there is a high probability that individuals holding
a hindrance stressor is the concept of organizational constraints these types of jobs will accomplish important organizational and
(Spector and Jex, 1998), or conditions (e.g., interruptions, occupational goals and reap the benefits of goal accomplishment.
poor equipment, etc.) that prevent employees from performing While empirical evidence on active jobs is sparse, there is
their jobs well. evidence that active jobs can result in positive outcomes (e.g., Van
The CHM is a fairly recent development in occupational stress Yperen and Hagedorn, 2003).
theory, since it is typically attributed to the article by Cavanaugh Another stress theory which is a forerunner of the CHM
et al. (2000) where it was first introduced. Given its recent (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 2000) is the transactional theory of stress
development, it is easy to overlook its many historical roots. In (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). At its core, the transactional
fact, in recent treatments of this framework (e.g., Mazzola and theory is a theory of two forms of appraisal—primary and
Disselhorst, 2019) the development of this model was attributed secondary. Primary and secondary appraisals are cognitive
simply to the fact that in many occupational stress studies the judgments of events and situations. Primary appraisal represents
signs of correlations were counterintuitive. While this is certainly an individual’s judgments as to whether or not something is a
true, we contend that the historical roots of the CHM go back stressor. For example, an impending work deadline may or may
much further than this. not be perceived as stressful, and there are a number of factors
In fact, the historical roots of this model can be traced back that would impact this judgment such as the importance of the
to the widely known Yerkes-Dodson law (Yerkes and Dodson, deadline, the work tasks necessary to meet the deadline, and
1908), which relates one’s level of physiological arousal to task the consequences of not meeting the deadline. If something is
performance. The form of this relationship is an Inverted-U, in fact perceived as a stressor, the next form of appraisal that
indicating that there is some optimal mid-range level of arousal comes to the forefront, according to the transactional model, is
that facilitates performance. Although Yerkes and Dodson were secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal, also referred to in the
not theorizing about the impact of stress on individuals, their transactional model as coping, represents the way(s) that a person
model is often invoked to support the idea that the relationship chooses to confront a stressor once it is perceived. Moreover, it
between stressors and many outcomes may deviate from linear, is theorized that each appraisal occurs simultaneously and that
as had often been assumed (e.g., Jex, 1998). secondary appraisals can inform primary appraisals, such that the
In the organizational literature the Yerkes-Dodson model has available resources an individual has to cope with a stressor may
been used as a rationale for designing work that has a moderate inform how they appraise said stressor (primary appraisal).
amount of physiological activation (Scott, 1966), and to explain In the previous example, a person with an impending deadline
the link between job complexity and physical health symptoms can respond to this stressor in a number of ways. For example,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

he or she can plan to spend more work time on the deadline, of CHM literature, their arguments were framed primarily
or ask for organizational resources to help meet the deadline— toward the discontinued or continued use of the existing model.
both of which would appear to be functional responses since The present review, however, expands upon these arguments
they would likely increase the probability of actually meeting through an integration of the arguments for and against the
the deadline. On the other hand, we know that people often CHM, offering conceptual and methodological suggestions to
cope with deadlines in much less functional ways. They may shape future CHM research. In the following sections, we
procrastinate, downplay the importance of the deadline, or even outline the rationale for a shifting paradigm in CHM research
consume alcohol in an effort not to think about the deadline. and describe advances in the literature that are illustrative of
The link between the transactional theory of stress and the proposed shift.
the CHM is rather straightforward since perceptions of
challenge stressors and hindrance stressors are appraisals at their
The Need for a Shifting Paradigm
core. Interestingly, however, appraisal has not been explicitly
One indicator of the value of any theoretical framework is the
incorporated to applications of the CHM until relatively recently
extent to which it generates empirical research. If we judge
and stressors were simply classified by researchers in an a priori
the CHM by this criterion, it has proven to be at least as
fashion. This is a point we return to later in the review, but it is a
useful as any occupational stress theory ever developed (see
very important one.
Jex and Yankelevich, 2008 for a description of occupational
stress theories). Thus, we are not advocating in this review
Existing CHM Evidence that the CHM be abandoned or accepted in its current form.
Since the model’s publication two decades ago, it has gained
Rather, what we are arguing is that evidence has accumulated
traction within the occupational stress literature. Empirical
which suggests that the CHM must undergo major modifications
work based on the model continues to grow, and has expanded
if it is to remain valuable as a guiding framework for
to incorporate a wider variety of criterion variables (e.g.,
occupational stress research. As research and theory-building
organizational citizenship and counterproductive work
is an inherently incremental effort, we assert that now is the
behaviors, Rodell and Judge, 2009; workplace safety, Clarke,
appropriate time to adapt the CHM based on advances in
2012), more rigorous methodology (multi-level studies, Idris
research design, measurement, and analysis. In this section
and Dollard, 2014; daily diary studies, Tadić et al., 2015), and
we briefly summarize the reasons behind the need for a
a more nuanced understanding of the boundary conditions
shifting paradigm.
and explanatory mechanisms associated with the model
(O’Brien and Beehr, 2019).
To quantitatively summarize support for the model across Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors Are
individual studies, multiple meta-analyses have been conducted. Fundamentally Appraisals
For example, LePine et al. (2005) and Podsakoff et al. (2007) As we pointed out in the first section of this review, one of
categorized stressors studied without an explicit basis in the the historical roots of the CHM is the transactional theory of
CHM model as challenge stressors or hindrance stressors, finding stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Applied to the CHM, this
partial support for the tenets of the CHM. Specifically, differential means that stressors are only challenge or hindrance stressors
relationships were supported for some variables (performance to the extent that they are perceived as such by employees.
and motivation in LePine et al., 2005 and job attitudes in Unfortunately, this important component of the transactional
Podsakoff et al., 2007), but there were also significant positive theory of stress is not commonly incorporated into applications
relationships between both types of stressors and strain in of CHM. Although early work did outline the role of appraisal
both meta-analyses. in the development of CHM hypotheses and attempt to control
A more recent meta-analysis investigated support for the for variables related to appraisal (Cavanaugh et al., 1998), the
model among studies using the CHM framework, finding CHM did not explicitly incorporate appraisal into how stressors
some evidence for CHM predictions when considering task are classified. Instead, stressors are typically universally classified
performance as the dependent variable, but not for organizational to be either challenge stressors or hindrance stressors.
citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, job
attitudes, retention and strain (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019). Challenge Stressor and Hindrance Stressor
Based on the existing body of evidence, our field remains Appraisals Are Not Mutually Exclusive
divided on the utility and generalizability of the model, as While the CHM accounts for the fact that challenge and
evidenced by a recent point-counterpoint piece in which hindrance stressors can exist in the same job (e.g., one can
authors recommend to “move away from the current challenge- have high workload and perceive organizational constraints), it
hindrance model” (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019, p. 949) does not account for the fact that the same stressor can be
and recommend continued use of the framework to produce considered both a challenge and hindrance at the same time
“interesting, valuable, and innovative research” (O’Brien and (e.g., Webster et al., 2011) and this is problematic for the
Beehr, 2019, p. 962). It is important to note that these recent model. A high workload, for example, can invigorate and provide
point-counterpoint reviews aimed to investigate current levels opportunities for growth. However, it can also prevent employees
of support for the model as it currently stands. Although from spending time with friends or hinder them from meeting
the authors did offer some suggestions to improve the state other work-related obligations.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

Challenge Stressor and Hindrance Stressor A central tenet of this theory is that individuals make an
Perceptions Are Not Static appraisal of a stressor as a hindrance if they feel like there are
Since Cavanaugh et al. (2000) proposed the CHM, there has been obstacles blocking them from achieving their work-related goals
an explosion of studies in the organizational sciences that have (Lazarus, 1991). In contrast, when a stressor offers an opportunity
employed within-person data collection (see Beal, 2015 for an for mastery and growth it should be appraised as a challenge
excellent discussion of this methodology). While a summary of stressor (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Although prior research
this research is well beyond the scope of this review, one general has supported that some stressors have a tendency to be related
conclusion that can be drawn is that perceptions of stressors and to positive and negative outcomes (LePine et al., 2005), the value
strains tend to have considerable within-person variability. That of measuring individual appraisal cannot be overstated.
is, people may feel very positive about their work 1 day and much Second, research has provided evidence that measuring
less positive the next day. Given this general finding, we believe appraisal accounts for unique variance in strain outcomes
that it is entirely possible that an employee could perceive some (Searle and Auton, 2015). This indicates that perceptions of
aspect of their job as a challenge stressors on 1 day yet feel as stressors such as workload is meaningful above and beyond the
though these same aspects are hindering on another day. content of the stressor itself, and explaining increased variance
bears theoretical importance given that it means findings are
better grounded in expected factors as opposed to error. Yet,
ADVANCES IN THE CHM FRAMEWORK the current measurement of challenge stressors and hindrance
stressors largely ignores the subjective appraisal of stressors.
Opportunities exist to reshape the CHM paradigm and recent A recent meta-analysis found that challenge stressors and
research exemplifies theoretical and empirical advances that can hindrance stressors were not always related to positive and
help our field respond to these opportunities. Advances in CHM negative outcomes as expected based on the CHM (Mazzola
measurement, study design, and our understanding of the model and Disselhorst, 2019). As Mazzola and Disselhorst note, some
itself are highlighted in the following sections. of these inconsistent findings may be explained by the fact
that many of the studies included in the meta-analysis did
Advances in CHM Measurement not measure challenge and hindrance appraisal and relied on
Since its initial conception by Cavanaugh et al. (2000), research a priori classification.
applying this framework made several advances in the way in Give these findings, we argue that the needed shift in the
which the tenets of the model are measured. Specifically, the existing CHM paradigm will incorporate individual appraisal of
opportunity to measure appraisals rather than classifying certain challenge stressors and hindrance stressors more often rather
stressors as challenge stressor or hindrance stressor a priori is than relying on a priori classifications, and we highlight research
discussed. This notion is based on prior research that has found that has incorporated this approach. For example, Webster
stressors can be appraised as both challenging and hindering (e.g., et al. (2011) examined the relationship between two traditionally
Webster et al., 2011; Searle and Auton, 2015). Additionally, some categorized hindrance stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict)
researchers argue for the inclusion of a third type of appraisal, and two challenge stressors (workload and responsibility for
threat appraisals. things) with challenge and hindrance appraisal. They found
that these stressors were significantly related to both challenge
Moving From an a priori Classifications and hindrance appraisal, with the exception of responsibility
of Stressors to Appraisal which was only positively related to challenge appraisal. These
Stressors were initially classified as either a challenge stressor findings are consistent with the idea that stressors can be
or hindrance stressor in a universal fashion in the CHM simultaneously appraised as both sources of challenge and
(Cavanaugh et al., 2000) and initial CHM instruments followed hindrance simultaneously (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). More
this approach. For example, in Rodell and Judge (2009) measure recently, Searle and Auton (2015) also found that stressors have
of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors participants are the potential to be appraised simultaneously as challenging and
asked to indicate the extent to which they have experienced hindering. Specifically, the authors found that time pressure,
certain stressors that are considered to be challenge stressors. a stressor typically categorized as a challenge stressor, was
The items are based on a priori classifications, such as workload, appraised as both a challenge and hindrance to a similar
responsibility, time pressure, and job complexity. Participants are extent. The a priori classification framework may present some
also asked to indicate whether they have experienced role conflict, challenges for understanding findings such as these.
role ambiguity, red tape, and hassles at work, which are classified Although one of the primary theses of the current review
as hindrance stressors in an a priori fashion. Although these is that a shifted CHM paradigm will incorporate appraisals
measures do build upon previous work by measuring a variety of stressors as challenge, hindrance, or threat, there may be
of stressors considered to be challenge stressors or hindrance situations where measuring appraisal may not be of feasible
stressors, a priori classification of a stressor in this manner can or advisable. Considerations should be made to how appraisals
be problematic for both theoretical and empirical reasons. may influence participant response burden or the generalizability
First, as we previously mentioned, the a priori classification of of previous findings from archival data and meta-analyses. In
stressors is not consistent with the transactional theory of stress, regard to research design, there are a number of instances in
a foundational theory for the CHM (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). which appraisals should not be measured. Appraisals should not

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

be measured in retrospect, given that the anticipated positive to different forms of affect. Challenge appraisals were positively
or negative outcome that influenced their appraisal may have related to positive affect, threat appraisals were positively
already occurred and distorted their recollection of their initial associated with anxiety and anger, and hindrance appraisal was
appraisal. We also assert that there may be little value in asking positively associated with fatigue. Although more research is
participants how they generally appraise a stressor or event, clearly needed, based on the theoretical underpinnings of the
given within-person variation in appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman, CHM’s basis, we argue that future research should consider the
1984). Instead, appraisals should be framed to a specific situation inclusion of threat appraisal in a shifted CHM paradigm. Doing
(Searle and Auton, 2015). so would allow researchers to test more precise hypotheses about
As the measurement of CHM appraisals is a relatively recent how perceptions influence stressor-strain relationships.
phenomenon (e.g., Webster et al., 2011), more work is needed
to identify the situations in which researchers should or should
not measure appraisals, as well as to advance the measurement of Advances in CHM Temporal
our objective work environment and our subjective experience Considerations
of that environment (e.g., Frese and Zapf, 1999; Perrewé and As previously mentioned, there is considerable within-person
Zellars, 1999). We do not assert that research based on a priori variation in most stressors and strains (Beal, 2015). Additionally,
classification is invalid, but rather that within a shifted CHM researchers contend that the stress process is dynamic rather than
paradigm, researchers will opt for the nuance and precision static (McGrath and Beehr, 1990; Rosen et al., 2020). However,
of explicit measurement of appraisal when possible and when little research has sought to examine the temporal aspects
appropriate for the research design. Researchers interested in underlying peoples’ experience of stress, such as fluctuating
measuring appraisals are referred to Webster et al. (2011), appraisals of stressors. Theories based on appraisal (e.g., the
who measured appraisal by presenting participants with the transactional theory of stress; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984)
definitions of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and highlight the importance of considering the acute event on which
asking participants about the degree to which the stressor appraisals are based, as well as amount of resources available
represented that definition. Readers are also referred to Searle and to direct toward stress-inducing stimuli. Given that events and
Auton (2015), who measured appraisals in terms of anticipated availability of resources will differ over time, there is a great deal
future impact (i.e., “will make my work challenging” on an of value in accounting for temporal dynamics in stress research.
agreement-based Likert scale). Based on this logic, not only should the appraisals of stressors
differ over time, but the relationships between challenge stressors,
Distinguishing Between Hindrance and Threat hindrance stressors, and strain should also show temporal
Appraisals fluctuations. When an individual is able to predict and plan
Some occupational stress researchers have also argued for the responses to a stressor, they are better able to invest their energy
value of distinguishing between hindrance and threat appraisal. and efforts toward preparing for the stressor (Lazarus, 1991;
Incorporating threat appraisal into the CHM is more consistent Parke et al., 2018; Rosen et al., 2020). As a result of anticipation
with the theory (i.e., Lazarus and Folkman, 1984 transactional and planning, they should experience less strain compared to
theory of stress) that the framework is derived from (Tuckey instances when they are not able to foresee a stressor.
et al., 2015). Over the years, Lazarus and Folkman have suggested Although this notion is currently understudied, a recent study
that an individual’s appraisal of a stressor may depend on its by Rosen et al. (2020) highlights the value of considering the
opportunity for personal gain and mastery (challenge appraisal), stability of challenge and hindrance stressor appraisals in the
potential to inhibit goal attainment (hindrance appraisal), or shifted CHM paradigm. When challenge stressors were stable
the possibility that they will lead to loss or harm in the future from week-to-week, individuals were better able to anticipate
(threat appraisal). Yet, studies incorporating threat appraisal in stressors, relative to when challenge stressors fluctuated. As a
the CHM are sparse. result of anticipating stressors, individuals with stable challenge
One study that has examined all three types of appraisal stressors appraised their stressors as challenging and ultimately
was conducted by Tuckey et al. (2015). These authors argued experienced less overall stress. Individuals who experienced
that it is important to distinguish between hindrance and threat more fluctuations in challenge stressors exhibited worse task
appraisal, given that both have negative valence, but differ slightly performance and reported greater subjective stress due to lower
in their theorized outcomes. Specifically, individuals make threat stressor anticipation and greater hindrance appraisals (Rosen
appraisals in situations that may result in personal harm or et al., 2020). In sum, these findings provide preliminary evidence
loss (Tuckey et al., 2015) and hindrance appraisals are made that accounting for the dynamic nature of challenge stressors may
when goals are obstructed. Tuckey et al. (2015) argue that it is explain when challenge stressors are beneficial for employees and
not inherently problematic for the CHM framework that both when they are detrimental.
hindrance stressor appraisals and threat appraisals exist; it is Our review of the literature found no studies that have drawn
instead problematic that prior studies have assumed and treated from the CHM to examine the variability of hindrance stressors.
hindrance stressors as equivalent to stressors that are appraised However, a study conducted by Matta et al. (2017), may provide
as threatening. Indeed, Tuckey et al. (2015) supported a three- some evidence to help theorize how the fluctuation of hindrance
factor structure of challenge, hindrance, and threat appraisal, stressors may result in negative outcomes. Matta et al. (2017)
and provided evidence that the three are differentially related conducted both a lab and field study that examined the effects of

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

consistent and inconsistent fair treatment. Interestingly, in their For example, responsibility for tasks at work is commonly
lab study, the authors found that being treated inconsistently characterized as a challenge stressor (Cavanaugh et al., 2000;
fair and unfair resulted in worse physiological stress than being Rodell and Judge, 2009). However, benefits and goal attainment
treated consistently unfair. Additionally, in their follow-up field may only occur when individuals have moderate responsibility
study they found that people who experienced more justice for certain aspects of their work. In contrast, when an individual
variability were less satisfied with their job and more emotionally has very little responsibility, they may not be given the
exhausted at the day level. opportunity to experience growth. On the other hand, when they
The theoretical mechanism that explains these findings experience too much responsibility, they may feel overwhelmed
is posited to be the uncertainty individuals feel when they and not perform to their fullest. Therefore, it is possible that when
experience inconsistency at work (Matta et al., 2017). Across a it comes to challenge stressors, an individual may experience too
wide variety of contexts, when individuals experience uncertainty much, or little, of a good thing to reap the benefits of said stressor
they feel less control and ultimately more stress (Bordia et al., (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019).
2004; Matta et al., 2017). Applied to hindrance stressors, it is The possibility of curvilinear relationships was explored
possible that fluctuations in hindrance stressors are worse for in Cavanaugh et al. (1998) working paper, but much of the
well-being relative to experiencing high levels of this type of CHM literature seems to default to linear hypotheses. Although
stressor regularly. For example, if an individual sporadically has understudied, there is some evidence that challenge stressors have
to cope with role conflict, they may experience worse strain than the potential to have curvilinear relationships with outcomes. For
an individual who consistently deals with role conflict because instance, Baer and Oldham (2006) found that time pressure had
they are unable to anticipate the hindrance stressors and mobilize a curvilinear relationship (inverted U-shape) with creativity for
resources to cope with it. However, research has yet to investigate employees who reported high levels of openness to experience
how fluctuations in hindrance stressors between time points and worked in an organization that reported high levels for
impact individuals’ ability to anticipate stressors and mobilize creativity. Although not the primary focus of their study, Rosen
coping resources to deal with their stress. et al. (2020) conducted a polynomial regression analysis and
Overall, accounting for the temporal dynamics of stressors found that greater fluctuations in challenge stressors from week-
sheds light on whether challenge stressors result in positive to-week had a curved response surface. This finding suggests
or negative outcomes for employees, which has theoretical that as the difference between past challenge stressors and
implications for the CHM (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Namely, current stressors becomes greater, individuals are increasingly
accounting for changes in the amount of challenge stressors less attentive and able to anticipate stressors at work. In regard
employees experience is important to understand when to stress appraisal, the curved estimate for the difference between
hypothesizing about the relationship between stressors, past and current challenge stressors, was significant for both
appraisals, and subsequent outcomes. Such findings also have challenge and hindrance appraisal. In other words, as fluctuations
important practical implications. Based on the idea that challenge between past and current stressors increase, individuals make
stressors should promote goal attainment at work, researchers even fewer challenge appraisals and increasingly more hindrance
(e.g., LePine et al., 2005) have recommended that managers appraisals. Increased consideration of non-linear forms of CHM
and supervisors provide their employees with challenging relationships, particularly when integrated with appraisal-based
opportunities. However, if an employee is not able to predict or measurement rather than a priori classification, will foster a more
anticipate when they will be faced with a greater workload or be nuanced understanding of the complexities of stressor-strain
placed under time pressure, they are likely to experience strain relationships in a shifted CHM paradigm.
(Parke et al., 2018; Rosen et al., 2020). Therefore, managers and
supervisors should be cognizant that challenge stressors have Advances in the CHM Itself
the potential to result in mastery and growth when an employee While some recent CHM advances relate to the measures
has the ability to predict and allocate coping resources to that and analytic techniques used in studies examining the model,
demand. Perhaps building in planned opportunities for challenge other advances relate to the CHM itself. That is, recent
into employee training and development plans would be an research on boundary conditions and explanatory mechanisms
effective way of achieving this goal. provide a greater understanding of how CHM components
related to one another and the conditions under which CHM
tenets are supported.
Advances in Forms of CHM
Relationships Greater Understanding of Boundary Conditions
Another potential explanation for the inconsistent support for The examination of moderator variables in the CHM (Cavanaugh
the tenets of the CHM could lie in the fact that curvilinear et al., 2000) is a promising avenue of research for two primary
relationships have not been explored extensively. Earlier in this reasons. First, research may provide evidence that certain
review, we noted that the historical roots of CHM acknowledge traits, states, or environments promote challenge and hindrance
the possibility of non-linear relationships (Yerkes and Dodson, appraisals. Second, if these traits, states, and environments are
1908). Challenge stressors may have the potential for growth and found to benefit individuals in how they appraise stressors, there
mastery, but when they are experienced in excess, employees may be opportunities for interventions in the workplace that
may not obtain the positive benefits challenges have to offer. bolster such conditions. We refer readers to a discussion of CHM

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

boundary condition research by O’Brien and Beehr (2019), who when individuals with high learning goal orientation are given
describe individual difference (e.g., conscientiousness; Abbas responsibility over things at work, they may be motivated to
and Raja, 2019), psychological states (e.g., recovery experiences; develop their competence and as such experience greater mastery
Bennett et al., 2018), and employee actions (e.g., proactive coping; over those responsibilities. Under a shifting CHM paradigm,
Searle and Lee, 2015) that have been found to moderate the researchers are encouraged to continue to search for moderators
stressor-strain relationship in a CHM framework. They also that may help us understand when and for whom CHM tenets are
highlight variables, such as social support, which have yet to be supported, while keeping in mind criteria for useful research on
investigated in a CHM framework and may present a fruitful boundary conditions (Murphy and Russell, 2017).
avenue in future research.
For future CHM boundary condition research, one individual Greater Understanding of Explanatory Mechanisms
difference that has been suggested (e.g., Mazzola and Disselhorst, Research examining CHM mediators is important because it
2019) to impact how individuals appraise stressors is stress sheds light on the theoretical mechanisms that explain the
mindset. Stress mindset is defined as an individual’s belief that relationships between challenge stressors, hindrance stressors,
stress has the opportunity to promote positive outcomes, such as and outcomes. A key theme in this review has been the
productivity and well-being (stress-is-enhancing), or that stress is importance of appraisal in CHM, which raises the question
detrimental for such outcomes (stress-is-debilitating; Crum et al., as to whether appraisal mediates CHM relationships. O’Brien
2013). In the context of the CHM, individuals who have a stress- and Beehr (2019) note that when appraisals are included in
is-enhancing mindset may be more likely to appraise stressful CHM studies, mediational hypotheses are generally supported
events as challenges rather than a hindrance or threat. In contrast, (although there may be more evidence for appraisal as a
individuals who have a mindset that stress is debilitating may mediator of the hindrance stressor-strain relationship than the
appraise stressful events as more of a threat or hindrance, rather challenge stressor-strain relationship; Gerich, 2017). In addition
than a challenge. to appraisal, several other variables have been investigated as
A similar individual difference that may function as a mediators in the CHM framework.
moderator between stressors and appraisal is coping self- Recently, work engagement has been examined as a mediating
efficacy. Coping self-efficacy has been defined as an individual’s variable in the context of organizational change. Kaltiainen
confidence in their ability to effectively cope with stress (Chesney et al. (2019) examined how individuals’ appraisal of a merger
et al., 2006). Alluding to the transactional theory of stress changed over time through latent change score modeling.
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), an individual’s primary appraisal They found that individuals who initially perceived the
of a stressful event will be impacted by their perception of merger as threatening were less engaged at work during
coping resources. Therefore, when an individual with high coping the merger and experienced a significant increase in threat
self-efficacy is confronted with a stressful event, they may be appraisal as the merger continued to be implemented. This
inclined to appraise the event as more challenging, rather than study is influential for the CHM because it examines how
threatening or hindering, relative to a person with low coping appraisals of organizational change may fluctuate over time
self-efficacy. Alternatively, it is possible that the appraisal process and provides evidence that this may be due to decreased
is not impacted, rather the relationship between different types of engagement at work.
appraisals and outcomes, will be less severe for individuals who Another novel mediator that has been examined is stressor
feel they can effectively cope with stress. anticipation. Evidence has supported that when traditionally
Another individual difference that may warrant future measured challenge stressors fluctuate, individuals are less able
research as moderator is goal orientation. Previous studies to anticipate stressors and, as a result, make more hindrance
have conceptualized workload, time pressure, and responsibility appraisals and less challenge appraisals (Rosen et al., 2020).
as challenge stressors in the CHM (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; We contend that future research should investigate anticipation
LePine et al., 2005; Rodell and Judge, 2009) because they as a mediating mechanism between stressors and appraisal
present opportunities for personal growth and mastery. However, given recent literature that has shown stressors (Rosen et al.,
constructs such as these may only result in greater task 2020) and stress appraisals (Kaltiainen et al., 2019) fluctuate
performance and growth, through challenge appraisal, depending over time. Within a shifted CHM paradigm, we encourage
on an individual’s goal orientation. Research on goal orientation researchers to continue explorations into how and why CHM
has identified two types of goal orientations: performance and tenets are supported.
learning (Button et al., 1996). Performance goal orientation is
described as a motivation to avoid negative judgments related to
one’s competence and attain favorable judgments from personal RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE
accomplishments and performance. Learning goal orientation is DIRECTIONS
characterized as a motivation to understand new concepts and
becoming competent in certain activities (Button et al., 1996). Throughout this review, we have argued for the need for a shifted
Applied to the CHM when individuals with high performance CHM paradigm as opposed to complete acceptance of the model
goal orientation are faced with a high workload, they may in its current form or complete abandonment of the model. We
appraise this situation as a challenge and perform better believe that in addition to attention to some of the novel and
than individuals with low performance orientation. Similarly, innovative research advances highlighted in this article, adhering

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

to several recommendations will foster a needed paradigm shift challenge stress as associated with anticipated gains, highlighting
and will add further value to an influential model. the synergies between these two frameworks.

Recommendations for Stress Models Vitamin Model

The Vitamin Model’s (Warr, 1987) propositions deal with the
and Theories
concepts of diminishing returns and the “too-much-of-a-good-
The CHM provides a useful lens for understanding stressor-
thing” principle. First, some job resources theorized to alleviate
strain relationships. However, with the exception of appraisal-
strain or promote well-being (e.g., salary; safety) will have a
based theories of stress, occupational stress theories have rarely
positive effect up until a certain point, after which further
incorporated challenge and hindrance distinction into their
increases in the resource will no longer have any effect. Other job
propositions. We discuss opportunities for integration with other
characteristics (e.g., job autonomy) will have inverted u-shaped
influential work stress theories and hope that more authors
effects, such that especially low or high levels of the resource will
will consider integration of CHM with these theories when
have a negative effect on well-being. In other words, stressors
appropriate for the aims and scope of their research.
and resources each have a “sweet spot” at which they exhibit the
Job Demands-Resources Theory strongest relations with strain.
As discussed previously, the Job Demands-Control Model (JD- This model’s tenets are not directly analogous to the CHM,
C; Karasek, 1979) can be considered as part of the historical but the models may be compatible. Curvilinear relations among
roots of the CHM, given that a job with high demands and challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, and strain may emerge
high control could represent the presence of challenge stressors. in two ways. First, characteristics of a stressor may have
Thus, this model and advancements of this model such as the curvilinear relations in how well they predict appraisals. For
Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R; Demerouti et al., 2001; some individuals, situations that require moderate levels of
Bakker and Demerouti, 2017) represent prime opportunities for social interaction may be appraised as a challenge while high
integration with CHM. However, studies using a JD-R framework levels of social interaction may be appraised as threatening.
do not typically consider whether demands are appraised as a Second, appraisals themselves may have curvilinear relations
challenge or hindrance stressor based on available resources to with strains. There may be specific levels of challenge appraisal
address the demand. Additionally, the tenet described above (i.e., that are perceived as tolerable and even desirable. After a
high demands and high control or resources) is not cited as specific point, however, challenge appraisals may still predict
often as the tenet relating to high demands and low control or emotional exhaustion. This logic highlights the importance of
resources, which can lead to an interpretation of all job demands testing curvilinear CHM relationships, and within stressor-strain
(i.e., stressors) as strain-inducing. In other words, based on the relationships more generally (Karanika-Murray, 2010).
most often-cited propositions of JD-R, some researchers could
interpret the “demands are bad” logic of JD-R and the “some Recommendations for Study Design and
stressors are good” logic of CHM as incompatible. These theories Measurement
could be further integrated with a greater consideration of the We encourage researchers to adhere to the measurement and
“active jobs” component of JD-C in which positive outcomes design-related recommendations made throughout this review,
are observed even in the presence of high demands and by including direct measurement of appraisal of stressors as
incorporating appraisals of demands as challenge or hindrance challenging or hindering when appropriate, a consideration
stressors as mediators in JD-R models. of the differentiation between hindrance appraisals and threat
appraisals, greater attention to temporal influences in appraisals
Conservation of Resources Theory and the relationships between stressors and strain, attention
Conservation of Resources (COR) theory proposes that stress to the possibility of non-linear relationships, and continued
is the result of situations and conditions that lead to resource exploration of moderators and mediators pertinent to the
loss or are anticipated to lead to resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). CHM. Although each recommendation may not be relevant
The theory additionally posits that people are motivated to or feasible for all future CHM studies, attention to such
preserve current resources and acquire more resources. These recommendations when possible will better acknowledge the
core propositions can be reframed in light of findings and foundational theoretical models on which CHM is built, better
theory related to the CHM. Applied to COR theory, hindrance acknowledge the complexities of occupational stress research,
stressors can be understood as circumstances that primarily and may help address inconsistent findings in CHM research.
threaten current resources or hamper opportunities to acquire In addition to the recommendations offered throughout this
more resources. On the other hand, challenge stressors could review, we encourage researchers to consider the following
be understood as “risky investment” circumstances. These are recommendations for future CHM research design.
circumstances where there is opportunity for resource gain (e.g.,
learning) yet also the possibility for loss of invested resources Understanding the Content of Appraisals
(e.g., time). Consequently, research on CHM may draw from Despite the numerous advantages of a quantitative approach,
COR theory to formulate hypotheses and research questions. there have been recent calls for greater use of mixed methods
In their working paper on challenge and hindrance stress, research designs in occupational health psychology research
Cavanaugh et al. (1998) draw on COR theory when framing (Schonfeld and Mazzola, 2013). Such designs combine the

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

advantages of qualitative and quantitative approaches, allowing Within-Person Design Considerations

researchers to gather rich accounts of context while summarizing Within-person research designs involve collecting observations
differences and relationships with parsimony. Applied to CHM, from individuals at multiple time points to capture intra-
there is still much to be learned about the context in which individual variation in variables of interest. Several research
challenge stressors or hindrance stressors occur. An end goal is questions related the CHM necessitate the use of within-
inherent in the basic tenets of CHM. A challenge stressor provides person designs. Appraisals, by definition, are context-dependent
growth and development, presumably for some imagined end cognitive judgments of specific circumstances or situations.
point (i.e., a promotion, a chance to implement a skill in a For the vast majority of research questions, it would be
new context). A hindrance stressor interferes with an employee’s inappropriate to ask participants to appraise general stressors
work life, and we can infer that stressors thwart the attainment (e.g., interpersonal conflict) because the extent to which stressors
of some goal (i.e., completing job tasks to the best of their are judged to be challenging or hindering will vary depending
ability, spending time with friends or family). Lastly, a threat on the circumstances of the particular situation (Searle and
represents a possible personal harm or loss related to a goal Auton, 2015). Research questions that aim to understand the
(e.g., maintaining physical health, financial security). Applying a factors that predict appraisals, how appraisals change over time,
mixed methodology approach would allow researchers to gather or the outcomes of appraising specific events, are therefore
more detailed information about the stressor, the end goal that an excellent fit for experience sampling method (ESM) and
is either being facilitated or hindered, or the anticipated loss or longitudinal designs.
harm. In essence, we will be able to understand why a stressor
is challenging, hindering, or threatening rather than merely Higher-Level Design Considerations
measuring the presence or appraisal of the stressor. The study of challenge and hindrance appraisals has been
Moreover, existing conceptualizations of stressors as either primarily studied at the individual level and at the intra-
challenge or hindrance stressors excludes work events that individual level (an exception is Pearsall et al., 2009). This leaves
may be stressful but are not traditionally conceptualized as many opportunities to better understand how the challenge-
a stressor. For example, an upcoming performance review, hindrance distinction affects occupational health dynamics
an interruption at work, an email, or a request for help at higher levels of analysis (i.e., teams, departments, and
are all events that could vary in the degree in which organizations). Numerous research questions can only be studied
they are appraised as a challenge or hindrance. That is, at this level of analysis. For example, researchers may investigate
a performance review may be appraised differently if an whether certain team-level variables (e.g., task interdependence,
employee has reason to believe they will be promoted based team resilience, norms) make it more likely for employees to
on their performance this year or reprimanded if they have appraise events as challenges or hindrances, the extent to which
performed poorly. However, the current conceptualization challenge and hindrance stressors influence team processes and
of stressors as either a challenge or hindrance does not outcomes, the outcomes of high or low variability in appraisals of
include such events, nor does it provide clear propositions a shared experience.
about how such work events should be conceptualized as Research at higher levels of analysis may be conducted using
either a challenge or hindrance. Gathering rich event-related both field studies and laboratory studies. Design choice will be
information would help elicit a greater understanding of dictated to some extent by the research question and inferences
additional stimuli that may be appraised as a challenge, that a researcher wants to make. Research questions that are
hindrance, or threat beyond those stressors already included in concerned primarily with variables that occur naturally over time
a priori classifications. or occur meaningfully at the organizational level of analysis will
be a better fit for field research. Research questions that involve
Expanding the Levels of Analysis specific team inputs that can be experimentally manipulated (e.g.,
The study of occupational stress has primarily focused on tasks) will be strong choices for laboratory designs.
individual-level predictors and indicators of strain (Bliese and
Jex, 1999). This is also true of research examining stressor- Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design
strain relations through the CHM lens (Cavanaugh et al., Considerations
2000). Research using individuals as the primary unit of Despite the stronger case for casual inferences that can be
analysis is appropriate for identifying general trends in stressor- made based on experimental and quasi-experimental designs,
strain relationship and the impact that individual-level factors they are underutilized in occupational stress research (Chen
(e.g., personality, attitudes) have in these relations. They are et al., 2013). Applied to the CHM, most of the literature
also appropriate for examining inter-individual differences in would not support that hindrance stressors cause strain
perceptions of shared experiences (e.g., company layoffs, policy and that challenge stressors cause positive outcomes, only
changes). However, findings can be extended by studying the that these variables are related (and temporally aligned with
CHM at both lower-order levels of analysis (i.e., within-person, expectations in the case of longitudinal research). Inclusion
daily experiences) and higher-order levels of analysis (i.e., team-, of experimental studies with random assignment, as well as
department-, or organization-level predictors and outcomes). quasi-experimental studies with strong design features that
Shifting focus to different levels of analysis will allow researchers mitigate threats to validity, add to the cumulative body of
to expand upon basic lines of inquiry in stress research. evidence in a way that better supports casual inferences

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

(Shadish et al., 2002). We encourage researchers employing of work tasks and responsibilities), and job enrichment
a CHM lens to consider the totality of study designs (increasing autonomy in the manner of fulfillment of
in their researcher toolkit, such as vignette studies that job tasks; Belias and Sklikas, 2013). Although these
experimentally manipulate a variable of interest (i.e., the presence strategies are expected to lead to enhanced satisfaction
of absence of challenge or hindrance stressors) and intervention and motivation, they could also introduce some new stress
studies that experimentally manipulate the presence of an into an employee’s work life due increased responsibility
intervention based on CHM. and expanded tasks. Yet, through a CHM framework these
new stressors would be more likely to be appraised as
Recommendations for Interventions challenge stressors and support positive outcomes. As the
Despite the simplicity and popularity of the model, the literature on interventions to improve employee quality of
CHM has yet to be fully explored from an intervention work life continues to grow and evolve, researchers and
perspective. In a recent systematic review of occupational practitioners may wish to further investigate the utility of a
health psychology interventions, none of the coded studies CHM perspective.
cited CHM as a basis for the intervention being evaluated
(Burgess et al., 2019). Interventions based off of the CHM
framework could adopt several approaches. First, employees CONCLUSION
could be trained on the potential value of appreciating
challenges, combatting any pervasive avoidance response Despite the relatively recent introduction of the CHM
to all stressors. Prior to an intervention based on this (Cavanaugh et al., 2000), the occupational stress literature
educational approach, an employee could universally avoid has responded with frequent adoption and consideration
or react poorly to all stressors, even challenge stressors. of the model (Jex and Yankelevich, 2008). However, recent
Through the intervention they would reshape appraisals literature argues both for and against the continued use of the
and behaviors toward challenge stressors. Such logic is model as it currently stands (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019;
consistent with the approach of providing psychoeducation O’Brien and Beehr, 2019, respectively). We argue that a
on eustress and distress in a stress management intervention shifted paradigm that better accounts for challenge and
(Le Fevre et al., 2006). hindrance stressors as appraisals, the possibility of the
Second, a job crafting perspective could encourage employees coexistence of challenge and hindrance appraisals for a
to seek out more features of their job that are challenging single stressor, and for temporal dynamics is needed to
and fewer that are hindering. Job crafting, thought of as advance CHM and enhance its value to the occupational
“individual job redesign” (Tims and Bakker, 2010, p. 1), stress literature.
refers to employees actively changing the boundaries, We highlight advances in CHM research as exemplars of this
conditions, relationships, and meaning involved in their shifted paradigm, including studies that further the measurement
work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). In fact, the Job of CHM appraisals, studies that explore temporal dynamics
Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) represents an integration and non-linear forms of relationships, and studies that extend
of the CHM with the JD-R Model, as the items reference our knowledge of how and when CHM predictions hold true
increasing challenging job demands, decreasing hindering job through examinations of moderators and mediators. We also
demands, and securing social and structural resources. Although offer recommendations for researchers intending to respond
not explicitly based on CHM, job crafting interventions to this call for a shifted CHM paradigm, including a greater
(particularly those in which protocols mirror the factors of understanding of context, expansion of levels of analysis, and
the Job Crafting Scale), could be seen as interventions that greater attention to CHM in workplace stress interventions. We
are related to CHM. Although the body of evidence on job believe that a shifted paradigm, informed by these advances
crafting interventions is still growing, preliminary support and recommendations, will address shortcomings of the CHM
exists for their utility in supporting employee well-being model and preserve the utility of the influential occupational
(Demerouti et al., 2019). stress framework.
Finally, a job design perspective would suggest that
interventions based on CHM should design work to decrease
hindrances and build in more challenges. Whereas the job AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
crafting approach would depend on proactive redesign efforts
from the part of the employee, a job design perspective would KH organized literature review and writing efforts and was
involve an organization creating or restructuring a job in a way primarily responsible for summarizing previous CHM research
that better supports motivation and well-being (e.g., Hackman and the intervention section. WN was primarily responsible
and Oldham, 1976). From a CHM perspective, the goal of a job for researching and writing the recent advances section. MD
redesign effort would be to minimize hindrance stressors and was primarily responsible for researching and writing the future
maximize challenge stressors. recommendations section. SJ was primarily responsible for
Strategies used in job design or redesign efforts include writing the historical roots and need for shifting paradigm
job rotation (rotating jobs to promote flexibility, awareness, sections. All authors played an equal role in manuscript editing
and motivation), job enlargement (expanding the breadth and made a substantial contribution to this manuscript.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

REFERENCES Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing

stress. Am. Psychol. 44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Abbas, M., and Raja, U. (2019). Challenge-hindrance stressors and job outcomes: Idris, M. A., and Dollard, M. F. (2014). “A multi-level study of psychosocial safety
the moderating role of conscientiousness. J. Bus. Psychol. 34, 189–201. doi: climate, challenge and hindrance demands, employee exhaustion, engagement
10.1007/s10869-018-9535-z and physical health,” in Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific, eds M. F.
Baer, M., and Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced Dollard, A. Shimazu, R. B. Nordin, P. Brough, and M. R. Tuckey (Dordrecht:
creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to Springer), 127–143. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-8975-2_6
experience and support for creativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 963–970. doi: 10.1037/ Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research, and Implications for
0021-9010.91.4.963 Managerial Practice—Advanced Topics in Organizational Behavior. California:
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: taking Sage Publications Ltd, 129.
stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22, 273–285. doi: 10.1037/ Jex, S. M., and Yankelevich, M. (2008). Work stress. SAGE Handb.Organ. Behav. 1,
ocp0000056 498–518. doi: 10.4135/9781849200448.n27
Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: state of the art and future potential of experience Kain, J., and Jex, S. (2010). “Karasek’s (1979) job demands-control model: A
sampling methods in organizational research. Annu. Rev. Orga. Psychol. Organ. summary of current issues and recommendations for future research,” in New
Behav. 2, 383–407. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-03244-111335 Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress (Bingley:
Belias, D., and Sklikas, D. (2013). Aspects of job design. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. Emerald Group Publishing Limited).
Res. 3, 85–94. Kaltiainen, J., Lipponen, J., Fugate, M., and Vakola, M. (2019). Spiraling work
Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., and Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work-related engagement and change appraisals: a three-wave longitudinal study during
effort: a meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 262–275. doi: 10.1002/job.2217 organizational change. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 25, 244–258. doi: 10.1037/
Bliese, P. D., and Jex, S. M. (1999). Incorporating multiple levels of analysis ocp0000163
into occupational stress research. Work Stress 13, 1–6. doi: 10.1080/ Karanika-Murray, M. (2010). “Work and health: curvilinearity matters,” in
026783799296147 Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., and DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty and Practice, eds J. Houdmount and S. Leka (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 151–168.
during organizational change: is it all about control? Eur. J. Work Organ. doi: 10.1002/9780470661550.ch8
Psychol. 13, 345–365. doi: 10.1080/13594320444000128 Karasek, R. A. Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Britt, T. W., and Jex, S. M. (2015). Thriving Under Stress: Harnessing Demands in implications for job redesign. Administr. Sci. Q. 24, 285–308. doi: 10.2307/
the Workplace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2392498
Burgess, M. G., Brough, P., Biggs, A., and Hawkes, A. J. (2019). Why interventions Karasek, R. T., and Theorell, T. T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and
fail: a systematic review of occupational health psychology interventions. Int. J. the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Stress Manag. 27, 195–207. doi: 10.1037/str0000144 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. Am. Psychol. 46,
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., and Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in 352–367. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.352
organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organ. Behav. Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York,
Hum. Decis. Process. 67, 26–48. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0063 NY: Springer Publishing Company, 150–153.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., and Boudreau, J. W. (1998). Le Fevre, M., Kolt, G. S., and Matheny, J. (2006). “Just the right amount of
“Challenge” and “hindrance” Related Stress Among U.S. Managers (CAHRS stress please: Yerkes and Dodson revisited,” in Conference Proceedings 2006
Working Paper #98-13). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. British Academy of Management: Building International Communities through
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., and Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An Collaboration, London: British Academy of Management.
empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. J. Appl. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., and LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test
Psychol. 85, 65–74. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for
Chen, P. Y., Cigularov, K. P., and Menger, L. M. (2013). “Experimental and quasi- inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad. Manag. J.
experimental designs in occupational health psychology,” in Research Methods 48, 764–775. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921
in Occupational Health Psychology: Measurement, Design, and Data Analysis, Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., and Passantino, L. G. (2017).
eds R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, and L. E. Tetrick (London: Routledge), 180–207. Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice
Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., and Folkman, S. variability and stress. Acad. Manag. J. 60, 743–770. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.
(2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br. J. 0455
Health Psychol. 11, 421–437. doi: 10.1348/135910705X53155 Mazzola, J. J., and Disselhorst, R. (2019). Should we be “challenging” employees?:
Clarke, S. (2012). The effect of challenge and hindrance stressors on safety behavior a critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress.
and safety outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17, 387–397. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 949–961. doi: 10.1002/job.2412
doi: 10.1037/a0029817 McGrath, J. E., and Beehr, T. A. (1990). Time and the stress process: some temporal
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., and Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets issues in the conceptualization and measurement of stress. Stress Med. 6,
in determining the stress response. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 104, 716–733. 93–104. doi: 10.1002/smi.2460060205
doi: 10.1037/a0031201 Murphy, K. R., and Russell, C. J. (2017). Mend it or end it: redirecting the search
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The for interactions in the organizational sciences. Organ. Res. Methods 20, 549–573.
job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 499–512. doi: doi: 10.1177/1094428115625322
10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 O’Brien, K. E., and Beehr, T. A. (2019). So far, so good: up to now, the challenge–
Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., and van den Heuvel, M. (2019). “Job crafting hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction. J. Organ.
interventions: do they work and why?,” in Positive Psychological Intervention Behav. 40, 962–972. doi: 10.1002/job.2405
Design and Protocols for Multi-Cultural Contexts, eds L. van Zyl and S. Parke, M. R., Weinhardt, J. M., Brodsky, A., Tangirala, S., and DeVoe, S. E.
Rothmann (Cham: Springer), 103–125. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20020-6_5 (2018). When daily planning improves employee performance: the importance
Frese, M., and Zapf, D. (1999). On the importance of the objective environment of planning type, engagement, and interruptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 103, 300–312.
in stress and attribution theory. Counterpoint to Perrewé and Zellars. J. Organ. doi: 10.1037/apl0000278
Behav. 20, 761–765. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., and Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and
Gerich, J. (2017). The relevance of challenge and hindrance appraisals of working hindrance stressors in teams: behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes.
conditions for employees’ health. Int. J. Stress Manag. 24, 270–292. doi: 10.1037/ Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 109, 18–28. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.
str0000038 002
Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Perrewé, P. L., and Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and
test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16, 250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030- emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process.
5073(76)90016-7 J. Organ. Behav. 20, 739–752.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346

Horan et al. Expanded Challenge-Hindrance Paradigm

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., and LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., and Oerlemans, W. G. (2015). Challenge versus hindrance
stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, job demands and well-being: a diary study on the moderating role of job
turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 438– resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 88, 702–725. doi: 10.1111/joop.12094
454. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438 Tims, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: towards a new model of individual
Rodell, J. B., and Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? job redesign. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 36, 1–9. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., and Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the
with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1438– job crafting scale. J. Vocat. Behav. 80, 173–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
1451. doi: 10.1037/a0016752 Tuckey, M. R., Searle, B. J., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, A. H., and Winefield, H. R.
Rosen, C. C., Dimotakis, N., Cole, M. S., Taylor, S. G., Simon, L. S., Smith, T. A., (2015). Hindrances are not threats: advancing the multidimensionality of work
et al. (2020). When challenges hinder: an investigation of when and how stress. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 20, 131–147. doi: 10.1037/a0038280
challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 1181–1206. Van Yperen, N. W., and Hagedorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase
doi: 10.1037/apl0000483 motivation of fatigue or both? The role of job control and social support. Acad.
Schonfeld, I. S., and Mazzola, J. J. (2013). “Strengths and limitations of qualitative Manag. J. 46, 339–348. doi: 10.5465/30040627
approaches to research in occupational health psychology,” in Research Methods Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health. Oxford: Oxford
in Occupational Health Psychology: State of the Art in Measurement, Design, University Press.
and Data Analysis, eds R. Sinclair, M. Wang, and L. Tetrick (New York, NY: Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., and Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance
Routledge), 268–289. model of occupational stress: the role of appraisal. J. Vocat. Behav. 79, 505–516.
Scott, W. E. (1966). Activation theory and task design. Organ. Behav. Hum. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001
Perform. 1, 3–30. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(66)90003-1 Wrzesniewski, A., and Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees
Searle, B. J., and Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge as active crafters of their work. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 179–201. doi: 10.5465/
and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety Stress Coping 28, 121–143. doi: 10.1080/ amr.2001.4378011
10615806.2014.931378 Xie, J. L., and Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: can job scope be too high?
Searle, B. J., and Lee, L. (2015). Proactive coping as a personal resource in the Acad. Manag. J. 38, 1288–1309. doi: 10.5465/256858
expanded job demands–resources model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 22, 46–69. doi: Yerkes, R. M., and Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relationship of strength of stimulus
10.1037/a0038439 to rapidity of habit formation. J. Neurol. Psychol. 18, 459–482. doi: 10.1002/cne.
Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 920180503
Selye, H. (1974). Stress Without Distress. New York, NY: Lippincott.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002). in Experimental Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, eds W. R. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell (Boston: Houghton Mifflin). potential conflict of interest.
Sonnentag, S., and Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. Handb. Psychol. 12,
453–491. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei1218 Copyright © 2020 Horan, Nakahara, DiStaso and Jex. This is an open-access article
Spector, P. E., and Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
inventory. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 3, 356–367. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.3. publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
4.356 use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 560346