Introduction: The challenge–hindrance stressor model

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2404
• Date: 01 October 2019
• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Author: Paul E. Spector

POINT‐COUNTERPOINT

Introduction: The challenge–hindrance stressor model

Paul E. Spector

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida

Correspondence

Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, PCD4118, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620.

Email: pspector@usf.edu

KEYWORDS

challenge–hindrance, occupational health, stress, well‐being

Since its inception, the challenge–hindrance stressor (CHS) model

(Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000) has become

increasingly popular as a framework for considering differential effects

of stressors on strains and other outcomes. One of the main proposi-

tions of the model is that hindrance stressors that interfere with per-

formance will have negative effects on employees, whereas

challenge stressors will be motivating and have positive effects.

Meta‐analyses have classified standard stressors into challenge versus

hindrance categories to compare relationships with various criteria. A

number of studies have used specific measures of challenge and hin-

drance stressors to compare them with one another. In this exchange,

two groups of researchers will evaluate the CHS model and provide

conclusions.

Joseph J. Mazzola and Ryan Disselhorst (in press) conducted both

a meta‐analysis and narrative review to compare relationships of these

two classes of stressors with a variety of criteria, including perfor-

mance, attitudes, and stains. They came to the conclusion that the

model as originally proposed cannot be supported. They argue that,

depending on the outcome variable, in most cases, challenge and hin-

drance stressors either have similar relationships with other variables,

or one is significant whereas the other is not. In very few cases were

relationships between the two types of stressors opposite, as sug-

gested by the model. They argue that the notion of increasing motiva-

tion by enhancing challenge stressors will likely have negative, not

positive, consequences.

Kimberly E. O'Brien and Terry A. Beehr (2019) take the opposing

view and defend the CHS model. They argue that the challenge–hin-

drance framework is useful from a theoretical standpoint and point

out that it helps us better understand the stress process. In

defending the model, they integrate the appraisal and resource the-

oretical perspectives that underlie it. They further summarize empir-

ical support for the model, discuss boundary conductions and

moderators, and note areas that need future research. One impor-

tant point is that the effects of both forms of stressors can be

complex and that we should not assume that stressors have uni-

formly positive or negative effects across a variety of strains and

other variables (such as job satisfaction) that they refer to as collat-

eral damage.

Both sets of authors agree that there are clear conceptual dis-

tinctions among stressors and that they can be classified. Where

they differ is in their conclusions concerning the extent to which

the CHS model as proposed is supported by the existing literature.

Where both sides agree is that the occupational stress process is

complex and that stressors can have a variety of detrimental effects

on people. The CHS model has stimulated a productive body of

research and is likely to continue to do so because it focuses atten-

tion on the possibility that stressors can have both positive and neg-

ative effects.

ORCID

Paul E. Spector https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6881-8496

REFERENCES

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W.

(2000). An empirical examination of self‐reported work stress among

US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology,85(1), 65–74. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0021‐9010.85.1.65

Mazzola, J. J., & Disselhorst, R. (in press). Should we be

“challenging”employees? A critical review and meta‐analysis of the

challenge‐hindrance model of stress. Journal of Organizational

Behavior.

O'Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2019). The challenge‐hindrance framework

describes a practical and accurate distinction. Journal of Organizational

Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2405

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Paul E. Spector is distinguished professor of industrial‐organiza-

tional psychology at the University of South Florida. He also

Received: 3 May 2019 Accepted: 18 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2404

J OrganBehav. 2019;40:947–948. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

947

94