How challenge and hindrance research stressors impact research performance and well-being of college teachers: Psychological capital as a key moderator
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2025
How challenge and hindrance research stressors impact research performance and well-being of college teachers: Psychological capital as a key moderator
With the development of the knowledge economy and technological advancements, universities are increasingly emphasizing the research performance of their faculty. This has resulted in unprecedented stress levels among college teachers globally.
Objective
This study investigates the influence of research stressors on the performance and psychological well-being of college teachers, drawing upon the challenge-hindrance stressor framework and conservation of resources theory.
Method
A two-wave time-lagged sample of 177 matched dyads (college teachers and their research secretaries) was utilized.
Results
Challenge research stressors positively impacted research performance through problem-focused coping. Hindrance stressors negatively impacted research performance and psychological well-being through emotion-focused coping. Psychological capital moderated these relationships, amplifying the positive effects of challenge stressors and mitigating the negative effects of hindrance stressors.
Conclusion
The study highlights the importance of coping strategies and psychological capital in managing research stressors, with implications for enhancing research performance and well-being among college teachers.
WangXYShengLChenLY. The influencing mechanism of challenge-hindrance academic stressor on academic performance: the mediating effects of academic anxiety and achievement motivation. Sci Sci Manag S.& T2014; 35: 23–30.
2.
YangGMinW. The stress, burnout and academic enthusiasm of faculty members. J High Educ2020; 41: 65–76.
3.
BaoW. COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: a case study of Peking University. Hum Behav Emerg Technol2020; 2: 113–115.
4.
JohnsonNVeletsianosGSeamanJ. US Faculty and administrators’ experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning2021; 25: 6–21.
5.
SmithJABrownPL. Administrative workload and its impact on academic performance: a global perspective. WORK2021; 68: 255–264.
6.
ShinJCJungJ. Academics’ job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. High Educ2014; 67: 603–620.
7.
WangHSunJ. Teacher stress and professional identity: a cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and Western teachers. Int J Educ Dev2020; 76: 102203.
8.
GaoJShiJ. The pressure to publish in Chinese higher education: how it impacts on academic staff and their teaching. Asia Pacific Education Review2018; 19: 243–255.
9.
CavanaughMABoswellWRRoehlingMV,et al.An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. J Appl Psychol2000; 85: 65–74.
10.
HobfollSE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist1989; 44: 513–524.
11.
LazarusRSFolkmanS. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer, 1984.
12.
DrnovšekMWincentJCardonMS. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start-up: developing a multi-dimensional definition. Int J Entrep Behav Res2010; 16: 329–348.
13.
LermanMPMunyonTPWilliamsDW. The (not so) dark side of entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of the well-being and performance consequences of entrepreneurial stress. Strateg Entrep J2021; 15: 377–402.
14.
StiglbauerBZuberJ. Challenge and hindrance stress among schoolteachers. Psychol Sch2018; 55: 707–721.
15.
LePineMA. The challenge-hindrance stressor framework: an integrative conceptual review and path forward. Group Organiz Manag2022; 47: 223–254.
16.
LePineJAPodsakoffNPLePineMA. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad Manag J2005; 48: 764–775.
17.
LepineJALePineMAJacksonCL. Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. J Appl Psychol2004; 89: 883–891.
18.
PodsakoffNPLePineJALePineMA. Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol2007; 92: 438–454.
19.
PearsallMJEllisAPJSteinJH. Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2009; 109: 18–28.
20.
RodellJBJudgeTA. Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J Appl Psychol2009; 94: 1438–1451.
21.
Tadić VujčićMOerlemansWGMBakkerAB. How challenging was your work today? The role of autonomous work motivation. Eur J Work Org Psychol2017; 26: 81–93.
22.
CrawfordERLePineJARichBL. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J Appl Psychol2010; 95: 834–848.
23.
MazzolaJJDisselhorstR. Should we be “challenging” employees?: a critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress. J Org Behav2019; 40: 949–961.
24.
BoswellWROlson-BuchananJBLePineMA. Relations between stress and work outcomes: the role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. J Vocat Behav2004; 64: 165–181.
25.
WebsterJRBeehrTAChristiansenND. Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. J Vocat Behav2010; 76: 68–77.
26.
WongKFEYikMKwongJYY. Understanding the emotional aspects of escalation of commitment: the role of negative affect. J Appl Psychol2006; 91: 282–297.
27.
ChoiHMMohammadAAAKimWG. Understanding hotel frontline employees’ emotional intelligence, emotional labor, job stress, coping strategies and burnout. Int J Hosp Manag2019; 82: 199–208.
28.
MattlinJAWethingtonEKesslerRC. Situational determinants of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior1990; 31: 103–122.
29.
JenningsJEMcDougaldMS. Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies: implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Acad Manag Rev2007; 32: 747–760.
30.
SmithRW, et al.The importance of appraisal in stressor-well-being relationships and the examination of personality traits as boundary conditions. J Manag Psychol2022; 37: 425–443.
31.
LeeJOkCMHwangJ. An emotional labor perspective on the relationship between customer orientation and job satisfaction. Int J Hosp Manag2016; 54: 139–150.
32.
LiangHXueYPinsonneaultA,et al.What users do besides problem-focused coping when facing IT security threats: an emotion-focused coping perspective. MIS Quarterly2019; 43: 373–394.
33.
LuthansFYoussefCM. Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management. Organ Dyn2004; 33: 143–160.
34.
AveyJBLuthansFJensenSM. Psychological capital: a positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Hum Resour Manag2009; 48: 677–693.
35.
ShenYE. Relationships between self-efficacy, social support and stress coping strategies in Chinese primary and secondary school teachers. Stress Health2009; 25: 129–138.
36.
HayesCTWeathingtonBL. Optimism, stress, Life satisfaction, and job burnout in restaurant managers. J Psychol2007; 141: 565–579.
37.
LuthansFAvolioBJAveyJB,et al.Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol2007; 60: 541–572.
38.
NolzenN. The concept of psychological capital: a comprehensive review. Manag Rev Q2018; 68: 237–277.
39.
BennettAABakkerABFieldJG. Recovery from work-related effort: a meta-analysis. J Org Behav2018; 39: 262–275.
40.
MinHKimHJLeeSB. Extending the challenge-hindrance stressor framework: the role of psychological capital. Int J Hosp Manag2015; 50: 105–114.
41.
KinickiAJPrussiaGEMcKee-RyanFM. A panel study of coping with involuntary job loss. Academy of Management Journal2000; 43: 90–100.
42.
LiJW. Study on the Correlation Between Job Stress and Performance Among University Teachers. Master's Thesis, Yanshan University, 2012.
43.
ZhengXZhuWZhaoH,et al.Employee well-being in organizations: theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. J Org Beh2015; 36: 621–644.
44.
AikenLSWestSG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.
45.
EdwardsJRLambertLS. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol Methods2007; 12: 1–22.
46.
WidmerPSSemmerNKKälinW, et al.The ambivalence of challenge stressors: time pressure associated with both negative and positive well-being. J Vocat Behav2012; 80: 422–433.
47.
JohnsonMThompsonR. Reducing role ambiguity to enhance well-being in academic settings. WORK2019; 62: 415–426.
