The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision

• Published date: 01 April 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2049
• Date: 01 April 2016

The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–

control–support model of occupational stress: A

proposed theory revision

KEVIN M. DAWSON*, KIMBERLY E. O’BRIEN AND TERRY A. BEEHR

Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, U.S.A.

Summary Previous research on the job demand–control–support (JDCS) model of occupational stress has generally

been inconsistent at best regarding a key issue: the interaction of demands, control, and support in predicting

employee health and well-being. However, the model continues to be tested in a variety of studies and aca-

demic journals owing to its intuitive appeal. By incorporating conservation of resources theory with knowl-

edge from the challenge–hindrance stressor framework, we proposed that hindrance stressors, not the

challenge stressors commonly assessed when testing JDCS theory, will provide validation for the model. A

two-wave panel study of 228 employees in a variety of occupations provided support for three-way interac-

tions between hindrance demands, control, and support predicting job-related anxiety and physical symptoms.

Three-way interactions using a challenge demand (forms of workload) were not significant, consistent with

our propositions. In summary, this study supports the buffering effect of control and support on the relation-

ship between job demands and strain only when job demands reflect hindrance stressors, thereby proposing to

alter the JDCS model by specifying that it applies primarily to hindrance stressors in a job hindrance–control–

support model. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: stressor; strain; challenge; hindrance; JDCS

Job stressors have considerable mental, physical, behavioral, and performance consequences (Matteson &

Ivancevich, 1987) that cost American businesses over $300bn a year (Cynkar, 2007). Thus, investigating the com-

plexities of stressor–strain relationships may prove invaluable to both the organization and its employees. Several

occupational stress models exist, but the underlying principle is that during interactions with certain parts of the

work environment (job stressors), job strain (employee poor health or well-being) develops, and this relationship

is influenced by perceptions of the environment (Spector, 1998).

Work situations that would normally seem stressful are not always accompanied by dire consequences, however,

leading to a search for moderators marking boundary conditions for the negative effects of job stressors. The job

demand–control–support model (JDCS; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) has been a key anchoring point for research

on the impact of work characteristics on employee health and well-being for the past three decades (van Veldhoven,

Taris, de Jonge, & Broersen, 2005). Its central tenet is the buffer hypothesis, which posits that job control and social

support interact with job stressors to reduce levels of employee strain. Despite the popularity and prevalence of the

JDCS model, empirical evidence supporting the seminal buffer hypothesis of this model has been marginal at best.

Meta-analyses consistently fail to show adequate support for the buffer hypothesis of the JDCS (e.g., Häusser,

Mojzisch, Niesel, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010; van der Doef & Maes, 1999), even when controlling for methodological

rigor (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003). Although empirical evidence indicates dubious va-

lidity for the JDCS model, the buffer hypothesis continues to pervade the literature and has led some to coin the

JDCS a zombie theory, a theory that continues to haunt stress research despite having died from a lack of empirical

*Correspondence to: Kevin M. Dawson, Central Michigan University, Sloan 100, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858, U.S.A. E-mail:

Dawso3km@cmich.edu

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 01 July 2014

Revised 13 July 2015, Accepted 23 July 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 397–415 (2016)

Published online 2 September 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2049

Research Article

support (Taris, 2006). Despite a lack of empirical evidence, literature continues to advocate the use of the JDCS

model, proclaiming validity and clamoring for further investigation of the model (e.g., Häusser et al., 2010).

The conceptualization of job demands in JDCS research provides an avenue for investigation. Empirical tests of

the buffer hypothesis commonly measure work load and/or time pressure as indicators of job demands (Häusser

et al., 2010), but stress researchers have since made distinctions between types of stressors: those appraised as po-

tentially promoting growth and achievement (i.e., challenge stressors) and those appraised as thwarting goal attain-

ment (i.e., hindrance stressors; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). We contend that the failure to

distinguish types of demands has led to inconsistent JDCS results. Incorporating knowledge from conservation of

resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we propose that job control and social support should buffer the strain as-

sociated with hindrance demands, but not employee strain associated with challenge demands.

We make three contributions to the literature. First, although the JDCS model is perhaps the most prominent

framework in the stressor–strain literature, researchers have been unable to produce sufficient empirical support

for the model’s seminal buffer hypothesis. By differentiating job demands based on the challenge–hindrance frame-

work, and integrating the competing tenants of the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we attempt to clarify the applica-

bility of the JDCS model. Second, by demonstrating that challenge and hindrance demands lead to differential

effects in the JDCS model, we explain the pattern of previous null effects that have plagued JDCS research. Instead

of previous suggestions faulting methodological issues, we provide a theoretical rationale as to why strain is not

buffered by control and support in the face of challenge demands. Third, replacement model proposals for the JDCS

tend to have large numbers of narrower variables tailored to specific situations, but the current model retains only the

few categories of variables of the JDCS that are applicable to a broad variety of situations, thereby fulfilling the need

for parsimonious job stress models (van Veldhoven et al., 2005).

The Job Demand–Control–Support Model

The JDCS model has three components: job demands, job control, and social support (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).

Job demands were originally defined as “psychological stressors involved in accomplishing the workload”(Karasek

& Theorell, 1990, p. 291). Job control (originally decision latitude) is the extent to which an employee has authority

to make decisions and utilize skills concerning the job, while social support is characterized by helpful relations with

supervisors and coworkers. The buffer hypothesis proposes a three-way interaction effect between job demands,

control, and support on employee strain, in which high levels of control and support reduce the strength of the pos-

itive relationship between demands and strain. It is assumed that the combination of control and support facilitates

coping which, in turn, enhances employee health and well-being (Daniels & Harris, 2005). This assumption may be

premature, as a meta-analysis reviewing 20 years of JDCS research reported support rates of less than 15 percent,

concluding that “the body of evidence paints a gloomy picture of the JDCS interaction”(Häusser et al., 2010, p.

30). We provide and test an explanation for these “gloomy”results and propose a revision to the JDCS theory, in

which it applies to one category of stressors, hindrance stressors.

Several researchers have offered explanations for the lack of JDCS support, often focusing on methodological is-

sues such as insufficient sample size (e.g., de Lange et al., 2003), use of overly broad demand–control–support mea-

sures (e.g., Beehr, Glaser, Canali, & Wallwey, 2001), and a lack of longitudinal studies (e.g., van der Doef & Maes,

1999). However, even studies with larger sample sizes, more specific demand–control–support constructs and lon-

gitudinal designs report null effects (review by de Lange et al., 2003). A possible explanation for the lack of support

is the common conceptualization and operationalization of job demands (van der Doef & Maes, 1999; Brough &

Biggs, 2013) as workload and time pressure. Researchers have since discovered the value in distinguishing between

two broader categories of stressors: challenge and hindrance (e.g., LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004). Through this

distinction, we expect to find meaningful buffer effects while providing an explanation for the abundance of past null

findings.

398 K. M. DAWSON ET AL.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 397–415 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job