When do you face a challenge? How unnecessary tasks block the challenging potential of time pressure and emotional demands.

PurposeDrawing from both the transactional theory of stress and the conservation of resources theory, this paper sets out to investigate the role of demand-specific challenge and hindrance appraisal of emotional demands, as well as time pressure and perceived goal progress within the challenge–hindrance framework.Design/methodology/approachFor this research, 91 employees provided daily diary data for one working week. Focusing on within-persons effects, multilevel moderated mediation models using multilevel path analyses were applied.FindingsBoth emotional demands and time pressure exert positive effects on work engagement when people expect resource gain (challenge appraisal), independent of actual resource gain (achievement). Furthermore, results show that goal progress buffers negative effects of perceived blocked resource gain (hindrance appraisal) on both emotional and motivational well-being.Originality/valueThis research proposes an extension and refinement of the challenge–hindrance stressor framework to explain health-impairing and motivational processes of emotional demands and time pressure, combining reasoning from both appraisal and resource theory perspectives. The study identifies demand-specific challenge and hindrance appraisals as mediators linking demands to emotional and motivational well-being, emphasizing the influence of goal progress as a resource on these relations.

Download Full-text

Deciding the Adequacy of a Set of Tests for an Specific Assessment Situation. Decision-making Strategies

European Journal of Psychological Assessment ◽

10.1027/1015-5759.12.1.14 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 14-22

Author(s):

R. Esteve ◽

A. Godoy

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Time Pressure ◽

Response Mode ◽

Information Load ◽

Variable Pattern ◽

Mode Effects ◽

Moderator Effects ◽

Specific Assessment ◽

Information Board ◽

Decision Importance

The aim of the present paper was to test the effects of response mode (choice vs. judgment) on decision-making strategies when subjects were faced with the task of deciding the adequacy of a set of tests for a specific assessment situation. Compared with choice, judgment was predicted to lead to more information sought, more time spent on the task, a less variable pattern of search, and a greater amount of interdimensional search. Three variables hypothesized as potential moderators of the response mode effects are also studied: time pressure, information load and decision importance. Using an information board, 300 subjects made decisions (choices and judgments) on tests for a concrete assessment situation, under high or low time pressure, high or low information load, and high or low decision importance. Response mode produced strong effects on all measures of decision behavior except for pattern of search. Moderator effects occurred for time pressure and information load.

Download Full-text

Speeded Paper-Pencil Sustained Attention and Mental Speed Tests

Journal of Individual Differences ◽

10.1027/1614-0001.29.4.205 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 205-216 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Stefan Krumm ◽

Lothar Schmidt-Atzert ◽

Kurt Michalczyk ◽

Vanessa Danthiir

Keyword(s):

Sustained Attention ◽

Time Pressure ◽

Factor Model ◽

Higher Order ◽

Future Research ◽

Perceptual Speed ◽

Speed Factor ◽

Close Relationship ◽

Task Processing ◽

Order Factor

Mental speed (MS) and sustained attention (SA) are theoretically distinct constructs. However, tests of MS are very similar to SA tests that use time pressure as an impeding condition. The performance in such tasks largely relies on the participants’ speed of task processing (i.e., how quickly and correctly one can perform the simple cognitive tasks). The present study examined whether SA and MS are empirically the same or different constructs. To this end, 24 paper-pencil and computerized tests were administered to 199 students. SA turned out to be highly related to MS task classes: substitution and perceptual speed. Furthermore, SA showed a very close relationship with the paper-pencil MS factor. The correlation between SA and computerized speed was considerably lower but still high. In a higher-order general speed factor model, SA had the highest loading on the higher-order factor; the higher-order factor explained 88% of SA variance. It is argued that SA (as operationalized with tests using time pressure as an impeding condition) and MS cannot be differentiated, at the level of broad constructs. Implications for neuropsychological assessment and future research are discussed.

Download Full-text