Interest regarding the challenge-hindrance occupational stress model has increased in recent years, however its theoretical foundation has not been tested. Drawing from the transactional theory of stress, this study tests the assumptions made in past research (1) that workload and responsibility are appraised as challenges and role ambiguity and role conflict are appraised as hindrances, and (2) that these appraisals mediate the relationship between these stressors and outcomes (i.e., strains, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intentions). For a sample of 479 employees, we found that although workload, role ambiguity, and role conflict could be appraised primarily as challenges or hindrances, they could also simultaneously be perceived as being both to varying degrees. Support was also found for a model in which primary appraisal partially mediated the stressor-outcome relationship.

SummaryReactions to an undercover police officer selection system were analyzed for 271 officers. Officers given undercover assignments had higher procedural justice perceptions and outcome satisfaction than others awaiting assignment in a qualified applicant pool. Procedural and distributive justice perceptions were subsequently related to the undercover officer's job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater (120 students and 105 professional employment interviewers) and the type of job were manipulated experimentally in a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 design. Physical attractiveness of job candidates had the broadest influence on employment decisions. There was no main effect for applicant sex, but professional interviewers were biased in favour of female applicants while student raters were not. Also, as expected, professional interviewers rated job applicants less leniently than students did.

The present study compared peer nominations, peer rankings, and peer ratings as to reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. A total of 145 police officers provided each type of peer assessment. Criterion rankings and ratings were provided by 33 squad supervisors. All peer-based methods showed significant reliability and validity, and the validity coefficients were not significantly biased by the friendship between peer assessor and assessee. Peer rankings and peer nominations displayed significantly greater reliability and validity than did peer ratings. User reactions were negative for all methods. Recommendations were made for collection of peer assessment data in nonpolice organizations for comparative purposes and for investigation of techniques to reduce negative reactions to peer assessment.There are four major areas of concern regarding the application of peer assessments in organizational settings: reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. These problem areas have been addressed substantially for only one technique of peer assessment, namely, peer nomination. Research findings from use of the peer nomination method, however, are not readily generalizable to peer ranking and peer rating techniques and may not accurately represent the field of peer assessment. ReliabilityPrevious investigations of the reliability of peer assessments indicate high levels of internal consistency for peer nominations (Kane & Lawler, 1978), but little evidence is available pertaining to peer ranking and This article is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted by the author to the University of South Florida in 1979.The material in this project was prepared under Grant 79-NI-AX-0023 from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. Researchers undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this article do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the U.

Recent literature reviews have attempted to link goal-setting processes with other traditional human relations topics, possibly in a search for explanations of the inconsistent results among some empirical studies. The present reformulation builds upon the models developed in these literature reviews by offering more specific propositions regarding the variables in these models and by integrating these variables with three other organizational themes: participative management, job design and role theory. The model offered here is a meta-model because it is an integration of variables and concepts from several other models. Eleven propositions regarding the direct effects of goal characteristics, feedback, and role characteristics and eleven corollaries regarding the moderating effects of personal and job characteristics are presented.