Stressors and Stressor Appraisals: the Moderating Effect of Task Efficacy
Cong Liu & Hai Li
Journal of Business and Psychology ISSN 0889-3268 J Bus Psychol DOI 10.1007/s10869-016-9483-4
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media New York. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol DOI 10.1007/s10869-016-9483-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Stressors and Stressor Appraisals: the Moderating Effect of Task Efficacy Cong Liu 1
&
Hai Li 2
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Employees’ cognitive appraisals play important roles in determining how they perceive and react to challenge and hindrance stressors. This study examined the stress process by studying employees’ cognitive appraisals using timelagged data collected with a time interval of 4 months. There were three major findings. First, challenge appraisals mediated the relationship of job complexity with work motivation and task persistence. Hindrance appraisals mediated the relationship of role conflict with work motivation and task persistence. Second, task efficacy significantly moderated the relationship between job complexity and challenge appraisal, as well as the relationship between role conflict and hindrance appraisal. Employees high in task efficacy were more likely to report challenge appraisals of job complexity than employees low in task efficacy. Employees low in task efficacy were more likely to report hindrance appraisals of role conflict than employees high in task efficacy. Finally, data supported the moderated mediation model in which task efficacy moderated the indirect effect of job complexity on motivation via challenge appraisal. Our study provided important input to the development of stress management interventions. Keywords Job complexity . Role conflict . Appraisals . Task efficacy . Motivation to work . Task persistence * Cong Liu
[email protected] Hai Li
[email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA
2
School of Economics and Business Administration, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 XinJieKouWai St., Beijing 100875, China
It is generally believed that there are challenge stressors and hindrance stressors (e.g., Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). Challenge stressors refer to work characteristics and/or workplace aspects that are demanding yet attainable (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). They have been associated with potential gains for employees. Challenge stressors, such as job complexity, have the potential to positively influence organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and job performance) (e.g., LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Hindrance stressors, such as role conflict, refer to work-related issues that unnecessarily impede goal attainment and negatively influence organizational outcomes (Cavanaugh, et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). LePine et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis linking stressors to motivation (broadly operationalized using constructs such as job/work motivation, effort, persistence, felt challenge, learning motivation, and expectancy). They found that challenge stressors positively predicted job performance through motivation, whereas hindrance stressors negatively predicted job performance through [de]motivation. Like most research on challenge and hindrance stressors, LePine et al. (2005) used the transactional theory of stress (Larazus & Folkman, 1984) to explain how these two types of stressors relate to employee motivation differently. According to the theory, an employee’s cognitive appraisal of a stressor plays a key role in determining different reactions or outcomes (Larazus & Folkman, 1984). However, due to the limitation of the meta-analytic data, LePine et al. (2005) were not able to include appraisal in the model. Indeed, appraisal has not received sufficient attention in the research of challenge and hindrance stressors at work (e.g., Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011). Most research assessing appraisals has been conducted in lab settings (e.g., Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993; Tomaka, Blascovich,
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol
Kibler, & Ernst, 1997; Tomaka, Palacois, & Lovegrove, 1995; Tomaka, Palacios, Schneider, Colotla, Concha, & Herrald, 1999). In these studies, participants were asked to conduct challenge and threat appraisals of experimental tasks. However, these lab studies did not examine job stressors and stressor appraisals, and they did not examine important work outcomes such as work motivation. It also might be difficult to generalize the lab results to work settings. Therefore, in this study, we collected field data to better understand the important function of appraisal on the job stressor–work outcome relationships. In field studies examining job stressors, a few studies have assessed challenge appraisal or felt challenge, as well as their relationships with work outcomes such as loyalty, work withdrawal behavior, job search, intention to quit, burnout, job satisfaction, customer conflict handling, creativity, and proactive behavior (e.g., Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004; Huang, Chiaburu, Zhang, Li, & Grandey, 2015; Ohly & Fritz, 2010). A limited number of studies has assessed both challenge and hindrance appraisals in relation to work engagement and flourishing, emotional exhaustion, physical symptom, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention (e.g., Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013; Webster et al., 2011). However, these studies used cross-sectional designs and they did not examine an important work variable—motivation. It is important to examine the long-term effect of stressors and stressor appraisals on employees’ motivational outcomes, because it takes time for employees to react to job stressors, especially chronic stressors such as job complexity and role conflict (Jex, 1998). Thus, our study extends this literature by examining how appraisal mediates the motivational process of challenge and hindrance stressors using a time-lagged design. In this study, we examined a specific type of challenge stressor—job complexity (i.e., the extent to which job tasks are mentally taxing and require skill and training on the part of the job incumbents; Campbell, 1988)—and a specific type of hindrance stressor—role conflict (i.e., the extent to which an employee receives incompatible tasks from several roles of him/her; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). We chose to study job complexity and role conflict for two major reasons. First, job complexity represents a typical challenge stressor, while role conflict represents a typical hindrance stressor (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Crawford et al., 2010; LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007; Rodell & Judge, 2009). Second, both job complexity and role conflict focus on the work content and tasks. We chose these task-related stressors because we wanted to examine the moderating effect of task efficacy. The moderating effect of domain-specific resource (e.g., task efficacy) is more salient when it is matched with the domain-specific stressors (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003). We predict that challenge appraisal mediates job complexity in relation to motivation, while hindrance appraisal mediates role conflict in relation to motivation.
LePine et al. (2005) suggested that individual differences, such as one’s knowledge, ability, skill, or personality, would affect how an employee appraises a job stressor. Self-efficacy is such a variable. Self-efficacy refers to people’s judgment about how well they can cope with the environment, giving the skills and abilities they possess (Bandura, 1982). Task efficacy, a specific type of self-efficacy, refers to an employee’s confidence in his/her capabilities to perform well on job tasks (Bandura, 1982). We chose to study task efficacy for three reasons. First, task efficacy is one’s belief in his/her task handling capabilities. High task efficacy employees believe they can effectively handle their work tasks. Thus, task efficacy reflects an employee’s coping potential (i.e., a latent ability of coping with an event; Tong & Tay, 2011) when facing a taskrelated stressor, such as job complexity or role conflict. Second, as suggested by LePine et al. (2005), challenge stressors are positively related to employees’ motivation whereas hindrance stressors are negatively related to work motivation. Task efficacy has been positively associated with persistence (BouffardBouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991), an important indicator of motivation (Kanfer, 1992). Therefore, task efficacy has the potential to influence motivational outcomes of challenge or hindrance stressors. Third, task efficacy is related to one’s job tasks. Both job complexity and role conflict are task-related stressors. According to the demand-induced strain compensation (DISC) model (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003), domain-specific abilities enable employees to better cope with domain-specific stressors. Thus, we studied task efficacy, a domain-specific individual difference variable, rather than a broad variable of core self-evaluation (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). To summarize, most research assessing appraisal has been conducted in lab settings. Appraisal has not received sufficient attention in field research despite playing a central role on perceptions of challenge and hindrance stressors (e.g., Webster et al., 2011). In addition, the influence of individual differences (e.g., task efficacy) on appraisal has not been well documented. Therefore, the contributions of this study were threefold. First, we investigated whether appraisals mediate the relationships between stressors (job complexity and role conflict) and motivation. Second, we examined how task efficacy moderates the relationships between stressors and stressor appraisals. Finally, we tested two moderated mediation models in which task efficacy moderates the indirect effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on motivation via their corresponding appraisals. Since both job complexity and role conflict are chronic stressors (Jex, 1998), their effects on employees’ work motivation may not be immediate. Therefore, we used a time-lagged research design to examine the long-term effects of stressors and stressor appraisals on employees’ motivational outcomes. Taken together, we hope to make contributions to the appraisal literature by examining a possible moderator (i.e., task
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol
efficacy) of the stressor–stressor appraisal relationships. Our study contributes to the self-efficacy literature by demonstrating one mechanism through which efficacy might impact motivation. Task efficacy may influence how employees make appraisals of job stressors, which, in turn, may affect motivational outcomes. Previous literature has shown the positive relationship between self-efficacy and motivation (e.g., Komarraju & Dial, 2014; Meissel & Rubie-Davies, 2016). The contribution of our study was to examine a more proximal/immediate mechanism through which task efficacy buffered employees’ reactions to job stressors and increased motivation.
Stressors, Stressor Appraisals, and Work Motivation Researchers have proposed that certain stressors are more likely to be appraised as challenges, whereas other stressors are more likely to be appraised as hindrances (e.g., Boswell & OlsonBuchanan, 2004; Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010; LePine et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2013). Examples of challenge stressors are job complexity, high workload, time pressure, and high responsibility. Examples of hindrance stressors are role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational constraints, and interpersonal conflicts (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Challenge stressors are positively related to work motivation, whereas hindrance stressors are negatively related to work motivation. The LePine et al. (2005) meta-analysis showed that both challenge and hindrance stressors explained 6 % of the variance in motivation. Other researchers also showed that challenge demands were positively related to attentiveness (an indicator of work motivation, Rodell & Judge, 2009), work engagement (Crawford et al., 2010), and vigor (the main component of engagement Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010), whereas hindrance demands were negatively related to engagement (Crawford et al., 2010) and vigor (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). However, what is missing in these studies is employees’ appraisals of job stressors. According to the transactional theory of stress, how people appraise a stressor is a complex process (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). At the primary appraisal level, people evaluate if they have anything at stake in the encounter (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongin, & Gruen, 1986). Secondary appraisal, which occurs after some reflection, involves people’s assessment of the controllability of the stressor and their coping potential. Employees form challenge appraisals when they believe they can cope with the stressor. Employees form threat or hindrance appraisals when they believe the stressor is out of their control. The transactional theory of stress emphasizes that cognitive processes intervene between job stressors and employees’ emotional and behavioral reactivity. The stressor–outcome
relationships are mediated by appraisals (Ohly & Fritz, 2010). Appraisals influence motivation (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001; Siemer, Mauss, & Gross, 2007; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Smith & Lazarus, 1993), which is then expressed in actions (e.g., Blascovich, Mendes, Tomaka, Salomon, & Seery, 2003). When a job stressor is perceived as challenging but manageable (i.e., challenge appraisal), employees are motivated to cope with the problem through increased effort (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). That is, challenge appraisals mediate the relationship between challenge stressors (e.g., job complexity) and increased motivation. On the other hand, when a stressor is threatening and employees do not feel able to cope with it (i.e., hindrance appraisal), employees may distance themselves from the situation and show reduced work motivation (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). That is, hindrance appraisals mediate the relationship between hindrance stressors (e.g., role conflict) and decreased motivation. This argument is consistent with expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). With challenge stressors, people are likely to see the positive link between their effort and their chance of meeting work goals (expectancy), as well as the positive link between meeting the work goals and obtaining outcomes (instrumentality) and associated value (valence). When facing hindrance stressors, employees are not likely to believe their effort is associated with meeting these work goals. Research has provided indirect support for the mediating effect of appraisal in the stressor–motivation relationship. Boswell et al. (2004) found a mediating effect of felt challenge in the relationships between challenge stressors and outcomes such as loyalty, job withdrawal, job search, and intention to quit. Ohly and Fritz (2010) found that challenge appraisals partially mediated challenge stressors of time pressure and job control in relation to creativity and daily proactive behavior. Webster et al. (2011) found that challenge and hindrance appraisals mediated the relationships between job stressors and employee outcomes of emotional exhaustion, physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intentions. In this study, we examined the mediating role of appraisals on the relationships between stressors and employees’ work motivation. Motivation is composed of energizing, directing, and maintenance of certain activities (Steers & Porter, 1975). We included two motivational variables. First, motivation to work is the desire of employees to engage in work-related behaviors. It refers to the extent to which employees engage in, attend to, and persist in work activities (Klein, Noe, & Wang, 2006; Noe & Schmitt, 1986). It is a force that influences employees’ enthusiasm about work, directs employees’ attention to master the work tasks, and keeps employees’ work effort in the presence of obstacles. With high motivation to work, employees are more likely to attend to and engage in work activities. When employees appraise a stressor as a
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol
challenge, they perceive it to be something that can be overcome in order to meet work goals. Therefore, employees are motivated to cope with the problem through increased effort (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). When employees appraise a stressor as a hindrance, they believe it presents a problem that they cannot solve. Therefore, employees may distance themselves from the situation and show reduced motivation to work (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). We propose that appraisals mediate the relationships between stressors and motivation to work. Second, an important component of motivation is persistence, which refers to the continuing engagement in a workrelated behavior (cf. Spector, 1996). Specifically, task persistence refers to the extent to which an employee maintains task-related behaviors over time (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). When an employee appraises a challenge stressor as something they can cope with, they direct their attention to the particular task and are more persistent on the task. On the other hand, when an employee faces a hindrance stressor, even though he/she starts working on the problem, with lack of confidence in coping (per secondary appraisal), the employee may quickly give up and switch his/her attention to something else. We propose that appraisals mediate the relationships between stressors and task persistence. We showed these mediating effects of appraisals in Fig. 1. Hypothesis 1a. Challenge appraisal mediates the positive relationships between job complexity and motivation to work/task persistence. Job complexity is positively related to challenge appraisal, and challenge appraisal is positively related to motivation to work/task persistence. Hypothesis 1b. Hindrance appraisal mediates the negative relationships between role conflict and motivation to work/task persistence. Role conflict is positively related to
hindrance appraisal, and hindrance appraisal is negatively related to motivation to work/task persistence. The Moderating Effect of Task Efficacy on the Stressor–Stressor Appraisal Relationships LePine et al. (2005) proposed that job stressor appraisals are influenced by individual differences, such as self-efficacy or specifically task efficacy. Individuals with high self-efficacy are better able to deploy their attention and effort to the situation and are spurred by obstacles to exert greater effort (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy can influence stressor appraisal by two means. First, employees’ coping potential influences how they appraise a certain job stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). People with high self-efficacy have high beliefs in their ability to cope with a stressor (Bandura, 1982). Research has found that students with high self-efficacy beliefs used more efficient problem-solving strategies (Collins, 1982); demonstrated greater strategic flexibility in searching for solutions (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Cervone & Peake, 1986); were equipped with more skillful and thoughtful analytic skills in decision making (e.g., Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Bandura & Wood, 1989); and applied more effective cognitive strategies in learning and managed and regulated their time and effort more effectively (Chemers, Hu & Garcia, 2001). In summary, efficacy beliefs help employees manage stressors through a more positive analysis of coping resources. Second, a core difference between challenge and hindrance appraisals is the amount of controllability people perceive (e.g., Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002). Self-efficacy reflects people’s evaluation of their ability to exercise control and, consequently, their motivation to exercise control. Employees with high self-efficacy perceive more control at work. This Motivation
Job Complexity H3a (Moderated Mediation)
Challenge Appraisal
+
+
Motivation to Work
H1a (Mediation Hypothesis)
H2a
Task Efficacy
Task Persistence
H2b
H3b (Moderated Mediation)
Role Conflict
Hindrance Appraisal
+
H1b (Mediation Hypothesis)
Fig. 1 The moderated mediation model of job complexity and role conflict
-
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol
perceived control helps them appraise a stressor as a challenge. Employees with low self-efficacy perceive less control. Therefore, they are more likely to appraise a stressor as hindrance. The impact of self-efficacy on stressor appraisals is documented in the literature. For example, Chemers et al. (2001) found that academic self-efficacy was related to more challenge-threat evaluations. However, they did not examine the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the stressor appraisal relationship. In field studies, researchers have also tested and found the moderating effect of self-efficacy on job stressor– strain relationships (e.g., Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Lu, Chang, & Lai, 2011; Panatik, O’Driscoll, & Anderson, 2011; Park, Beehr, Han, & Grebner, 2012; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997). We predict that task efficacy will moderate stressor appraisal relationships. Task efficacy is a specific type of self-efficacy referring to employees’ confidence in their capabilities to perform well on job tasks (Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, & Hooker, 1994). The moderating effect of task efficacy on the stressor appraisal relationship was informed and supported by the self-efficacy literature. Therefore, we predict that employees high in task efficacy should be more likely to appraise job complexity as a challenge. By contrast, low task efficacy employees are more likely to perceive role conflict as something that thwarts their work goals; consequently, they are more likely to appraise role conflict as a hindrance. Therefore, as indicated in Fig. 1, we contend employees’ task efficacy plays an important role in influencing the degree to which a challenge stressor is appraised as a challenge and a hindrance stressor is appraised as a hindrance. Hypothesis 2a. Task efficacy moderates the positive relationship between job complexity and challenge appraisal. Job complexity is more positively related to challenge appraisal for employees high in task efficacy than for employees low in task efficacy. Hypothesis 2b. Task efficacy moderates the positive relationship between role conflict and hindrance appraisal. Role conflict is more positively related to hindrance appraisal for employees low in task efficacy than for employees high in task efficacy. The Moderated Mediation Models Taken together, we propose two moderated mediation models based on Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b. Model 1 focuses on job complexity and is presented in the top part of Fig. 1. Model 2 focuses on role conflict and is presented in the bottom part of Fig. 1. Hypothesis 3a (model 1). Task efficacy moderates the indirect effects of job complexity on motivation to work and task persistence through challenge appraisal. The indirect effect will be stronger for employees with high task efficacy than for employees with low task efficacy.
Hypothesis 3b (model 2). Task efficacy moderates the indirect effects of role conflict on motivation to work and task persistence through hindrance appraisal. The indirect effect will be stronger for employees with low task efficacy than for employees with high task efficacy. We used a time-lagged design to test the research hypotheses. Since appraisal happens immediately after the occurrence of a stressor (Lazaruz & Folkman, 1984), we assessed both of them at time 1. We also assessed task efficacy at time 1. Four months later, we collected data on employees’ motivation to work and task persistence. It takes time for employees to react to chronic stressors such as job complexity and role conflict (Jex, 1998). Therefore, we assessed motivational variables at time 2 because we wanted to study the longterm effect of challenge and hindrance stressors.
Method Participants Data were collected from a major Chinese airline company with business in air passenger, cargo, and mail transportation. Currently, the company has over 15,000 employees, working in over 160 domestic and international flight routes. The company is one of the five major airline companies in China. Employees from the Department of Maintenance and Engineering provided data. The major responsibilities of this department include maintaining and repairing aircrafts. The Department of Maintenance and Engineering has over 2000 employees, occupying near 100 positions. The average age of employees is around 27. We conducted two rounds of data collection with a 4month interval. At time 1, we collected data from 418 employees, including 356 males and 60 females. Two employees did not report their gender. The mean age was 27.24 years (SD = 4.25). The mean tenure was 46.92 months (SD = 33.12). At time 2, we collected data from 324 employees, including 292 males and 31 females. One employee did not report his/her gender. The mean age was 28.37 years (SD = 4.55). The mean tenure was 56.07 months (SD = 35.92). Procedure We obtained permission and support from top management at the Department of Maintenance and Engineering. With assistance from the Center Management Office of the Department, we obtained the employee roster. We emailed the employees and invited them to participate in the survey study. They were told to come to the conference room at certain time to fill out the survey. Each survey section was scheduled for 30 min. For time 1 data collection, we used pencil-and-paper surveys. We
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol
assigned each employee a code, which was written on the Employee Survey. There was no name on the survey. The researchers brought the surveys to the conference room. Employees filled out the surveys and returned them to the researcher directly. The time 1 Employee Survey included measures of job complexity, challenge appraisal of job complexity, role conflict, hindrance appraisal of role conflict, and task efficacy. We distributed 531 Employee Surveys and 418 completed surveys were returned. The response rate was 78.7 %. Time 2 data collection was conducted 4 months after the initial survey. Since the paper-and-pencil survey was time consuming and labor intensive, we developed an online survey to collect data at time 2. The Center Management Office emailed the survey website link, along with the codes employees were assigned at time 1, to the employees. To enter the online survey, each employee had to click the link and enter his/her code provided in the email. The time 2 Employee Survey included measures of motivation to work and task persistence. The same 531 employees invited to participate at time 1 were also invited to participate in the time 2 survey. Of the 531 employees, 324 completed the online survey and the response rate was 61.0 %. We matched time 1 and time 2 surveys using each employee’s assigned code. Participants were informed that their responses were confidential. No one except two researchers (the second author and a graduate research assistant) had access to the matching of the name and code. After the data collection, we mailed our Bthank you^ gifts (a book for each participant) to the Department of Maintenance and Engineering. Measures We asked participants to answer questions about their current jobs. Job complexity was measured with eight items from Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design Questionnaire, with four items from the Job Complexity subscale (a sample item is BThe job comprises relatively complicated tasks^) and four items from the Problem Solving subscale (a sample item is BThe job involves solving problems that have no obvious correct answer^). We tested a one-factor model with eight items loading on the overall job complexity construct. The fit was good: χ2 = 50.79, df = 16, p < .001; RMSEA = .072, NNFI = .97, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, SRMR = .033. So we used the overall measure of job complexity. The response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The coefficient alpha was .86. We then asked the participants to make separate appraisals for each specific item. That is, after each of the eight job complexity items, we asked two additional questions to assess challenge appraisals of job complexity (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Webster et al., 2011). The first item—BDo you view this
item as a positive challenge^—was based on McGregor and Elliot’s (2002) study. The second item—BCan you overcome it to achieve your work goals^—was based on the Tomaka et al. (1993) study. The response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. We took the average of the appraisal items to get the overall score of challenge appraisals of job complexity. The coefficient alpha was .94. Role conflict was measured with three items from Peterson et al. (1995). A sample item is BI often get involved in situations in which there are conflicting requirements.^ Response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The coefficient alpha was .80. Each role conflict item was followed by two additional questions to assess hindrance appraisals of role conflict (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Webster et al., 2011). The first item was BDo you view this item as a hindrance.^ The second item was BIs this a difficult problem you cannot overcome.^ Both items were based on Drach-Zahavy and Erez’s (2002) scale. Response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. We took the mean of these appraisal items to get the overall measure of hindrance appraisal of role conflict (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002). The coefficient alpha was .89. Task efficacy was measured with a 10-item task efficacy scale developed by Riggs et al. (1994). Sample items are, BI have confidence in my ability to do my job^; BThere are some tasks required by my job that I cannot do well^; and BI am an expert at my job.^ Response choices range from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The coefficient alpha was .72. Motivation to work was measured with Noe and Schmitt’s (1986) eight-item scale. The original scale was designed to measure motivation to learn. We revised the items so that they measured motivation to work. Response choices range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Participants were instructed to answer these questions considering their motivation to work in the past 3 months. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation: varimax) on the eight items of the motivation to work scale. The eight items loaded on one factor (Table 1), with the eigenvalue of 4.97. These results provided support to the overarching construct of motivation to work. The coefficient alpha for the motivation to work scale was .93. Task persistence was measured with three items used by Tsai et al. (2007). Participants were instructed to answer these questions considering their task persistence in the past 3 months. A sample item is, BWhen facing a difficult task, I made every effort to complete it.^ Response choices range from 1 = never to 5 = extremely often. The coefficient alpha was .87. All measures in this study were originally in English. A competent bilingual person translated the English scales into simplified Chinese scales. One of our authors conducted the back translation. The original English version and the backtranslated version were compared (Werner & Campbell,
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol Table 1 Factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation based on the motivation to work scale
Hayes’ (2004) SPSS Mediation Macro to examine these indirect effects. The results are presented in Table 3. Hypothesis 1a predicted that challenge appraisal would mediate the positive relationships between job complexity and motivation to work/task persistence, and Hypothesis 1b predicted that hindrance appraisal would mediate the negative relationships between role conflict and motivation to work/task persistence. Both hypotheses were supported.
Motivation to work 1. I am motivated to complete the work tasks that are assigned to me. 2. I will try to work as much as I can for this job. 3. I will get more out of this job than most people.
.80 .76 .71
4. I want to improve my job knowledge that this job requires. 5. If I cannot understand some part of my job, I will try harder. 6. I intend to master the skills that are emphasized in this job. 7. I am genuinely interested in the content of this job.
.85 .81
Moderation Analysis
.83 .69
8. I am willing to exert considerable effort to complete my job tasks.
To test the moderation hypotheses, we conducted multiple moderated regression (MMR) analyses using centered variables. As suggested by Spector and Brannick (2011), we conducted two sets of analysis. In the first set of analysis, we controlled employees’ age, gender, and tenure. In the second set of analysis, we did not control these demographic variables. The two analyses returned similar results. Hence, we present the results without controlling the demographics in Table 4. Hypothesis 2a predicted that task efficacy would moderate the relationship between job complexity and challenge appraisal. As shown in Table 4, job complexity significantly interacted with task efficacy in predicting challenge appraisal. We split the data file by the mean of task efficacy and conducted simple slope analyses. For employees with high task efficacy (i.e., employees’ task efficacy scores were greater or equal to the mean), job complexity significantly positively predicted challenge appraisal (b = .25, t(185) = 4.23, p < .001). For employees with low task efficacy (i.e., employees task efficacy scores were less than the mean), job complexity did not predict challenge appraisal (b = −.05, t(192) = −.71, p = .48). As recommended by Aiken and West (1990), we examined the nature of the moderating effect of task efficacy by plotting the relationship between job complexity and challenge appraisal at high (+1SD) and low
.84
1970). Based on the comparison results, we made adjustments to the Chinese version so that it was consistent with the English version.
Results The descriptive information, correlations, and coefficient alphas for major variables are presented in Table 2. The pattern of correlations was consistent with our model presented in Fig. 1. Mediation Analysis We used the bootstrapping method to examine the mediating hypotheses. As suggested by past literature (Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004), bootstrapping is a useful method in detecting significant indirect effects because it avoids power problems introduced by non-normal sampling distributions. We ran Preacher and Table 2
Descriptives and correlation matrix
1. Age 2. Gender 3. Tenure 4. Job complexity (JC, T1) 5. Challenge appraisal of JC (T1) 6. Role conflict (RC, T1) 7. Hindrance appraisal of RC (T1) 8. Task efficacy (T1) 9. Motivation to work (T2) 10. Task persistence (T2) N M SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
– −.05 .71** .16** −.004 .11* .08 .20** −.08 .09 409 27.31 4.04
– .04 .03 .07 −.13** −.12** −.01 .14* .15* 416 1.86 .35
– .13** .10* .06 .03 .11* −.07 .03 412 46.92 33.11
.86 .10* .44** .29** .28** .02 .14* 413 3.24 .75
.94 −.25** −.41** .06 .15** .29** 398 3.70 .65
.80 .51** .15** −.16** −.15** 421 2.83 .93
.89 .07 −.19** −.21** 415 2.57 .80
.72 .12* .28** 417 4.59 .78
.93 .44** 324 4.16 .50
.87 324 3.84 .58
The coefficient alphas are presented diagonally *p < .05; **p < .01
Author's personal copy J Bus Psychol Table 3
Stressor appraisal mediates the relationship between job stressor and employees’ motivational outcomes
Models
Direct effect
Bootstrap results for indirect effect M
LL 95 % CI
UL 95 % CI
Job complexity (T1)–challenge appraisal of JC (T1)
Motivation to work (T2) Task persistence (T2)
.02 .12*
.03 .06
.008 .02
.08 .12
Role conflict (T1)–hindrance appraisal of RC (T1)
Motivation to work (T2)
−.03
−.06
−.11
−.01
Task persistence (T2)
−.01
−.07
−.13
−.02
N = 218–230. Bootstrap sample size = 5000 Direct effect direct effect of job stressor on motivational outcome *p < .05
Table 4 The moderating effect of task efficacy on the relationships between stressors and stressor appraisals Challenge appraisal
Hindrance appraisal
ΔR
ΔR
2
Step 1 Job complexity Step 2 Task efficacy Step 3 Job complexity × task efficacy Total R2 n Step 1 Role conflict Step 2 Task efficacy Step 3 Role conflict × task efficacy Total R2 n
B
2
B
.01*
Appraisal of Job Complexity
a 5 4.5 4 3.5 3
Task Efficacy Low
2.5
Task Efficacy High
2 1.5 1 Low
.10* .03
5
.21*** .07*** 378
Variables were standardized prior to analysis *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Appraisal of Role Conflict
b
.05***
B unstandardized coefficients
High Job Complexity
.001
.26*** .44***
