ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办：中国心理学会
　　　中国科学院心理研究所
出版：科学出版社

心理学报 ›› 2009, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (06): 501-509.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

挑战性-阻断性压力（源）与员工心理和行为的关系：自我效能感的调节作用

张韫黎;陆昌勤
  

  1. 北京大学心理学系，北京

  • 收稿日期:2007-12-25 修回日期:1900-01-01 发布日期:2009-06-30 出版日期:2009-06-30
  • 通讯作者: 陆昌勤

Challenge Stressor-Hindrance Stressor and Employees’ Work-Related Attitudes, and Behaviors: the Moderating Effects of General Self-Efficacy

ZHANG Yun-Li, LU Chang-Qin   

  1. Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  • Received:2007-12-25 Revised:1900-01-01 Online:2009-06-30 Published:2009-06-30
  • Contact: LU Chang-Qin

PDF (PC)

3599

摘要：

本研究旨在探讨挑战性-阻断性两类不同性质的压力源与员工心理和行为的关系，重点探讨一般自我效能感的调节作用。研究采用问卷调查方式，以309名飞行签派员为研究对象，数据分析采用层级回归的分析方法。研究结果发现：⑴阻断性压力与工作满意度呈负相关，与离职倾向呈正相关，而挑战性压力与离职倾向呈负相关，与工作满意度的正相关没有达到显著水平；⑵挑战性-阻断性压力与身心紧张都呈正相关；⑶一般自我效能感调节阻断性压力与身心紧张、工作满意度之间的关系，但对离职倾向的调节作用不显著，即在面临阻断性压力时，自我效能感高的员工，其身心健康水平、工作满意度明显高于自我效能感低的员工，而离职倾向没有明显差异；⑷一般自我效能感调节挑战性压力与工作满意度、离职倾向之间的关系，但对身心紧张的调节作用不显著，即对于自我效能感高的员工，挑战性压力会提升其工作满意度，降低其离职倾向，而对自我效能感低的员工则恰恰相反。

关键词: 挑战性-阻断性压力, 一般自我效能感, 工作满意度, 离职倾向, 身心紧张, 调节作用

Abstract:

In stress research area, although some scholars (e.g., Selye,1974) suggested that stress could be appraised as “bad” (distress) or “good” (eustress), most of the studies paid more attention to the negative outcomes of stress. Recently, Cavanaugh and his colleagues (2000) found that some stressors might result in positive outcomes, and perceived stressors could be differentiated into two types: challenge stressors and hindrance stressors. Based their definitions, challenge stressors refers to “work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals, including high workload, time pressure, job scope, and high responsibility”, whereas hindrance stressors refers to “work- related demands or circumstances that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual’s work achievement, and do not tend to be associated with potential gains for the individual, including organizational politics, red tape, role ambiguity, job insecurity” (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). It has consistently been found that challenge stressors associated positively with desirable outcomes, such as job satisfaction and performance, while hindrance stressors associated negatively with these same outcomes. However, both types of stressors were founded harmful to well-being. The purpose of this study is to extend the previous studies to investigate the moderating effects of general self-efficacy (GSE) among the challenge-hindrance stress process.
A self-administered questionnaire survey method was used to collect data from 309 air dispatchers. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for data analyses. The results consistently showed that ⑴hindrance stressors were negatively related to job satisfaction, and positively related to turnover intention, while challenge stressors were negatively related to turnover intention. However, the positive relation between challenge stressors and job satisfaction was not significant; ⑵both challenge and hindrance stressors were positively related to strains; ⑶GSE buffered the relations between hindrance stressors and strains, and job satisfaction. However, GSE did not have any moderating effect on the relation between hindrance stressors and turnover intention. That is, individuals with higher GSE would react less negatively to hindrance stressors than those with lower GSE; ⑷GSE strengthened the relations between challenge stressors and job satisfaction, and turnover intention. Nevertheless, GSE did not have any moderating effect on the relation between challenge stressors and strains. Specifically, when dealing with increasing challenge stressors, individuals with higher GSE had higher job satisfaction, and lower turnover intention, whereas for those with lower GSE, there were adverse trends.
The present study contributes to challenge-hindrance stressors literature by elaborating the different moderating effects of general self-efficacy. GSE tends to strengthen the relations between challenge stressors and outcomes but buffer the relations between hindrance stressors and outcomes. In terms of practical implications, work stress should be discriminated when stress managements and coping strategies are proposed. Hindrance stressors should be eliminated. Regarding to challenge stressors, instead of reducing or moving them, organizations or managers might be open to encourage employees to meet such challenges as long as they can endure the levels of stressors.

Key words: challenge stressor-hindrance stressor, general self-efficacy, job satisfaction, turnover intention, strains, moderating effects