The relevance of challenge and hindrance appraisals of working conditions for employees’ health.

Abstract

Psychosocial risk assessments are frequently applied with an a priori classification of favorable and unfavorable working conditions. However, such classifications contradict transactional stress theory and the results of research that found the effects of work stressors on wellbeing to be dependent on boundary conditions. The challenge/hindrance framework assumes that the effects of stressors on wellbeing depend on their individual appraisal as either challenge (stressors associated with personal gain) or hindrance (stressors associated with constraints). We took a heterogeneous sample of 631 employees and, by taking into account their individual appraisals as challenge or hindrance, studied associations between exposure to working conditions covered by a frequently used psychosocial risk assessment and health outcomes. Our findings confirmed substantial variations of appraisal and confirmed that challenge and hindrance evaluations of exposures to working conditions are not mutually exclusive. Whereas exposure to working conditions was only partly associated with health outcomes, all challenge appraisals were positively related and all hindrance appraisals negatively related with favorable health outcomes. When adjusted for challenge and hindrance appraisal, direct effects on health outcomes were not significant for most of the considered working conditions. Health effects of working conditions were partly mediated by challenge/hindrance appraisals, and appraisal explained more variance in health outcomes than information about exposure to these conditions. Nevertheless, negative health effects were observed for some working conditions (time pressure, qualitative demands, responsibility, and interruptions), even when controlled for employees’ evaluations. We conclude that measures of challenge/hindrance appraisals should be included in occupational risk assessments.

The Ambivalent Appraisal of Job Demands and the Moderating Role of Job Control and Social Support for Burnout and Job Satisfaction

“…Similar single item measures for stressor appraisal were used by Webster et al (2011). We chose however, a slightly different wording (Gerich 2016) with a stronger emphasis on the differentiation between challenge and hindrance.…”

“…The different results may be attributable to a difference in the measurement of challenge appraisal. Whereas Webster et al's (2011) question on challenge appraisal expressed an attenuation of hindrance (although "potentially stressful, something you think you can overcome"), the notion of personal gain was more pronounced in Gerich's (2016) question of whether a working condition was perceived as a "beneficial opportunity or challenge". Searle and Auton (2015) applied multiple item measures of challenge and hindrance appraisal and confirmed indirect effects of opposite direction for stressors via challenge and hindrance appraisal on work-related affective states.…”

“…Some authors (Chong et al 2011;Gerich 2016;Searle and Auton 2015;Webster et al 2011) have contended that an a priori classification of stressors as either challenging or hindering is not in accordance with the assumptions of transactional stress theory, because such classification does not account for the personal and situational variance of stressor appraisal and because some stressors may be appraised as a challenge and a hindrance at the same time. Webster et al (2011) applied separate challenge and hindrance appraisal measures for four work stressors (workload, responsibility, role conflict, and role ambiguity) and found that all stressors (except responsibility) were positively correlated with challenge and hindrance appraisal, which meant that a stressor could simultaneously be appraised as a challenge and a hindrance.…”

“…For example, Bakker (2014, p. 234) argued that "it is still unclear whether daily work pressure acts as a challenge or hindrance stressor" and that the role of such stressors likely varies for different resources of work environments embedded in distinct occupational sectors. Moreover, recent studies (Gerich 2016;Searle and Auton 2015;Webster et al 2011) found substantial inter-individual variance in stressor appraisal regarding challenge and hindrance perception. Thus, there are strong indications that stressors might be simultaneously appraised as both a challenge and a hindrance.…”

So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction

“…Although several mediators of the effects of challenge–hindrance stressors on some outcomes have been studied (e.g., self‐efficacy, Webster, Beehr, & Christiansen, ) , a recurring question is whether appraisal mediates the relationship between stressors and the primary stress outcome of strain. One study of 631 Austrian employees focused on the strains of burnout, health, and health symptoms and found that employees' hindrance appraisals generally mediated the effects of working demands (e.g., time pressure, scope of action, qualitative demands, and responsibility), whereas for challenge appraisals there was less evidence for mediation (Gerich, ). Another study found that both challenge and hindrance appraisals tended to mediate the relationships between stressors with strains, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions (e.g., Webster et al, ).…”