Do within- and between-person results converge? A cross-level comparison of the Challenge-Hindrance Model of Stress

Udo Konradt, Sabrina Krys
{"title":"Do within- and between-person results converge? A cross-level comparison of the Challenge-Hindrance Model of Stress","authors":"Udo Konradt,&nbsp;Sabrina Krys","doi":"10.1016/j.erap.2023.100890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>A cross-level comparison of the Challenge-Hindrance Model of Stress (CHM) provides important theoretical insights into the preciseness of the model and the boundary conditions guiding it. Furthermore, knowing whether all individuals share the same within-person relationships (i.e., general law) provides further important insight into the accuracy of the CHM.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We thus examined whether results from the between- and within-person level are conceptually similar and converge, by testing homology across levels in significance, sign, and magnitude, and whether all individuals were characterized by the same within-person relationship referred to as a general law. Drawing from instrumentality theory, we also examined the role of goal value, goal expectancy, and goal attainment to explain the relationship between stress appraisals and on-task effort.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>In a diary study, we collected data from 108 students over 14 consecutive days while preparing for an exam (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1420 observations).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A multilevel structural equation model revealed that homology was present only in less than 50% of the relationships examined, limiting the generalizability of the CHM. In addition, we found no general law for any of the associations, suggesting that students possibly are not characterized by the same relationship, further limiting the predictions of the CHM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We conclude that the population-level results of the CHM might not apply to specific individuals and consideration should be given to refining the model.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46883,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1162908823000233","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

A cross-level comparison of the Challenge-Hindrance Model of Stress (CHM) provides important theoretical insights into the preciseness of the model and the boundary conditions guiding it. Furthermore, knowing whether all individuals share the same within-person relationships (i.e., general law) provides further important insight into the accuracy of the CHM.

Objective

We thus examined whether results from the between- and within-person level are conceptually similar and converge, by testing homology across levels in significance, sign, and magnitude, and whether all individuals were characterized by the same within-person relationship referred to as a general law. Drawing from instrumentality theory, we also examined the role of goal value, goal expectancy, and goal attainment to explain the relationship between stress appraisals and on-task effort.

Method

In a diary study, we collected data from 108 students over 14 consecutive days while preparing for an exam (n = 1420 observations).

Results

A multilevel structural equation model revealed that homology was present only in less than 50% of the relationships examined, limiting the generalizability of the CHM. In addition, we found no general law for any of the associations, suggesting that students possibly are not characterized by the same relationship, further limiting the predictions of the CHM.

Conclusion

We conclude that the population-level results of the CHM might not apply to specific individuals and consideration should be given to refining the model.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人与人之间的结果是否一致?压力的挑战-阻碍模型的跨层次比较
导言:对压力的挑战-阻碍模型(CHM)进行跨层次比较,可以从理论上深入了解该模型的精确性以及指导该模型的边界条件。因此,我们检验了人与人之间和人与人之间的结果在概念上是否相似和趋同,方法是测试不同水平的显著性、符号和幅度的同源性,以及是否所有个体都具有相同的人与人之间的关系(即一般规律)。根据工具性理论,我们还研究了目标价值、目标期望和目标实现在解释压力评价与任务努力之间关系时的作用。结果多层次结构方程模型显示,同源性只存在于不到50%的关系中,这限制了CHM的普适性。此外,我们还没有发现任何关联的普遍规律,这表明学生们可能并不具有相同关系的特征,从而进一步限制了 CHM 的预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The aim of the Revue européenne de Psychologie appliquée / European Review of Applied Psychology is to promote high-quality applications of psychology to all areas of specialization, and to foster exchange among researchers and professionals. Its policy is to attract a wide range of contributions, including empirical research, overviews of target issues, case studies, descriptions of instruments for research and diagnosis, and theoretical work related to applied psychology. In all cases, authors will refer to published and verificable facts, whether established in the study being reported or in earlier publications.
期刊最新文献
Trait authenticity as an “enzyme” for personal resources and work engagement: A study among teachers within the framework of the job demands-resources model Guilt-proneness and self-management behaviour: The moderating role of sense of belonging Justice sensitivity's impact on strike outcomes in Germany and France Editorial Board Induction émotionnelle positive et production d’inférences : étude chez des enfants de 9 à 11 ans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1