Anja Baethge
Tim Vahle-Hinz- 1IESW and Department of Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
- 2Department of Organisational, Business, and Social Psychology, Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Introduction: We examine the effect of general challenge or hindrance appraisal tendencies and variability therein on the relationship between weekly time pressure with work engagement and irritation. According to appraisal theory, we suggest that general challenge or hindrance appraisals and the time dynamic of the appraisal (stability vs. variability) affect the stress response to weekly time pressure.
Method: In a multilevel analysis of a 5-week weekly diary study (N = 277) we calculated the moderation effect of the mean and standard deviation of challenge and hindrance appraisal on the weekly relationship between time pressure with work engagement and strain.
Results: General hindrance appraisal moderated the effect of time pressure on vigor and absorption. The relationship was positive (/non-significant) if hindrance appraisal was low (/high) for absorption. We only found significant three-way interactions for hindrance appraisal with vigor, dedication, and cognitive irritation as outcomes. A low variability of general high hindrance appraisal reduced the moderation effect of general hindrance appraisal on the relationship between time pressure and work engagement/strain.
Discussion: We conclude that there is an adaptation effect which can be eliminated by a high variability of hindrance appraisal.
Introduction
Time pressure is considered a workplace stressor (see e.g., the Job Demand Control model), and previous research has demonstrated its role in predicting strain (Baethge et al., 2023; Li et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Prem et al., 2018). At the same time, studies have shown that time pressure can also positively relate to motivational outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, and work engagement (Baethge et al., 2018, 2019; Reis et al., 2017; Schmitt et al., 2015). These dual effects—being positively associated with both strain and motivation—have been conceptually integrated into the challenge–hindrance framework (LePine et al., 2005), which classifies time pressure as a so-called challenge stressor. This is opposed to hindrance stressors, which are known to decrease motivation and increase strain (LePine et al., 2005).
However, more recent literature has questioned this fixed categorization of stressors into challenge or hindrance (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019). For example, time pressure can facilitate the achievement of personal goals—such as the successful (if last-minute) completion of a time-consuming project—and thus act as a challenge. But it can also thwart goal attainment—for instance, when urgent but burdensome tasks prevent employees from pursuing more meaningful or interesting work—thereby acting as a hindrance. Accordingly, time pressure inherently has the potential to act as both a challenge and a hinderance (e.g., Baethge et al., 2018; Prem et al., 2018; Reis et al., 2017).
Empirical studies have further demonstrated that whether time pressure is experienced as a challenge or hindrance depends on the context in which it occurs—including individual resources, workplace characteristics, and situational factors (Schilbach et al., 2022, 2023). This suggests that the challenging or hindering effect of time pressure depends on the circumstance in which time pressure arises.
According to appraisal theory, the appraisal process takes these circumstances into account, shaping how time pressure translates into strain or motivation (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987; Searle and Auton, 2015). Thus, the appraisal process plays a central role in determining whether time pressure is experienced as a challenge or a hindrance.
In our study, we seek to examine in greater depth the role of appraisal in shaping whether time pressure acts as a challenge or a hindrance (see Figure 1). We focus on the outcome variables work engagement (as indicator of motivation) and irritation (as indicator of strain). Irritation encompasses both cognitive components (such as rumination) and emotional reactions to work-related stress (Mohr et al., 2005). It serves as an optimal marker of the accumulated stress experienced throughout the work day (cf. Baethge et al., 2015) and thus functions as an early warning sign of future health problems (Gralla et al., 2023). We chose work engagement as a motivational indicator. Work engagement reflects a positive work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). It is a well-defined, measurable motivational concept that was introduced to the literature on workplace stressors as it captures positive consequences of work and has been highly influential since then (e.g., Bakker et al., 2023).
Figure 1. Conceptual model for the study.
We contribute to the literature in two ways. First, previous research, grounded in appraisal theory, has typically conceptualized appraisal as a situational, state-like process that mediates the effect of time pressure on strain and motivation (e.g., Kern et al., 2023; Ohly and Fritz, 2010; Prem et al., 2017). Complementary to this perspective, we develop the concept of a general appraisal tendency, capturing more stable, trait-like tendencies to appraise time pressure as either a challenge or a hindrance. We argue that such general tendencies, shaped by repeated experiences of time pressure and their outcomes, provide an important and so-far-overlooked piece of the puzzle in understanding how employees respond to distinct phases of time pressure at work. By introducing a person-level moderator, we address the question of why individuals systematically differ in their responses to comparable time pressure situations—a question that cannot be fully explained by momentary appraisals alone. Second, given that situational appraisals are known to fluctuate over time, we further investigate whether the impact of general appraisal tendencies depends on their stability or variability across time. This further refines the concept of a general appraisal tendency by considering that its intraindividual consistency may determine how strongly it shapes reactions to time pressure. Specifically, we combine the argumentation based on appraisal theory with ideas from adaptation theory to explain that under the condition of a low variability in general appraisal tendencies, the effects of time pressure might be less pronounced.
Together, these contributions aim to (a) broaden the theoretical scope of appraisal theory in occupational stress research, (b) enhance the explanatory power of models predicting differential stress responses to time pressure, and (c) offer practical implications for identifying and supporting employees based on their habitual ways of interpreting time-related demands. Next, we review the literature on appraisal as a mechanism explaining the effects of time pressure on strain and motivation. We then introduce the concept of a general appraisal tendency and develop specific hypotheses regarding its role.
Appraisal and the effect of time pressure
Appraisal theory posits that whether individuals experience stress in a given situation depends on how they appraise that situation (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). Specifically, when individuals perceive a situation as potentially stressful, they evaluate whether it is a challenge (e.g., offering opportunities to learn or grow), a hindrance (e.g., restricting their capabilities), or a threat (e.g., involving the risk of loss of resources). This primary appraisal depends on the individual's perceived coping skills and available coping options (secondary appraisal).
Based on this theory, the effect of time pressure on strain and motivation results from how time pressure is appraised. Empirically, this means that whether time pressure acts as a challenge or hindrance depends on how it is perceived in the given moment. Reflecting this, the literature has conceptualized and tested appraisal as a mediator of the relationship between time pressure and outcomes such as work engagement and strain (Kronenwett and Rigotti, 2022; Searle and Auton, 2015). For example, Kronenwett and Rigotti (2022) found in a diary study that the positive association between time pressure and engagement was mediated by challenge appraisal, while the positive association with negative affect was mediated by hindrance appraisal. Similarly, Prem et al. (2018) showed that time pressure negatively related to procrastination via challenge appraisal, and positively via hindrance appraisal.
While this literature has provided valuable insights, it focuses exclusively on the appraisal of specific, situational experiences of time pressure. We propose that it is also important to consider how employees generally appraise time pressure, independent of specific situations. This is also supported by appraisal theory, as it suggests that the appraisal process is followed by coping with the stressful situation (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987), and that the repeated experiences of stress and coping outcomes shape how individuals approach similar situations in the future (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). Thus, over time employees may develop a stable pattern—or general tendency—to appraise time pressure as a challenge or a hindrance.
We define this general appraisal tendency as an individual's average tendency, over a meaningful period (e.g., several weeks), to evaluate time pressure in a certain way. This tendency reflects the accumulation of past experiences in a given job context and may help to explain why employees respond differently to comparable time pressure situations.
To illustrate: Consider Albert, a nurse who consistently perceives time pressure as hindering him from providing the quality of care he values, and Betty, a project manager who generally experiences time pressure as a stimulating challenge to outperform others. Both will differ not only in their momentary appraisals of specific episodes but also in their general, trait-like tendency to respond to time pressure—which we argue shapes their overall experience of strain and motivation at work.
Effects of general time pressure appraisal tendencies
To investigate a general time pressure appraisal tendency, we apply a multilevel approach. We conducted a weekly diary study in which weekly assessments are nested within individuals. This design allows us to distinguish between momentary appraisals of time pressure (i.e., weekly appraisals) and general appraisals (i.e., a person's average across all weeks). A momentary appraisal reflects whether the time pressure in a specific week is perceived as more or less of a challenge or hindrance compared to that person's average experience. In contrast, the person's average challenge or hindrance appraisal (over all weeks) highlights a general tendency of a person to appraise time pressure as a challenge or hindrance per se.
We argue that this general appraisal tendency is crucial for understanding how employees respond to time pressure. To illustrate this, let us return to the earlier examples: Nurses like Albert, working in understaffed wards, may routinely view time pressure as an obstacle to delivering high-quality work. Project managers like Betty, however, may see time pressure as a chance to demonstrate their capabilities—such as handling high workloads effectively (cf. Baethge et al., 2023). These examples highlight how people differ in their habitual appraisal of time pressure. For some, it is primarily a burden (hindrance), while for others, it represents a challenge and an opportunity for growth. Typical diary studies focus on within-person effects; that is, how weekly fluctuations in time pressure relate to outcomes within individuals. However, such analyses do not capture these stable, general appraisal tendencies. We believe these general appraisal tendencies to be important as they serve as a lens through which employees consistently interpret time pressure situations. This way, general appraisal tendencies might shape employees' reactions to time pressure and offer a further explanation as to why time pressure acts as a challenge or hinderance. Recent cross-sectional studies have found evidence for such moderation effects of stress appraisals on the relationship between workplace demands and outcomes like strain and engagement (Li et al., 2020, 2021).
Employees with a general tendency to appraise time pressure as a hinderance likely base this view on past experiences where time pressure prevented them from reaching their goals and offered no opportunity for growth (cf. Crawford et al., 2010). For these individuals, time pressure is a frustrating demand that must simply be endured. As a result, time pressure is unlikely to be motivating, but instead becomes a stronger source of strain—since the required effort is not met with any perceived reward. Supporting this idea, previous studies show that hindrance appraisals weaken the positive effects of motivating job characteristics (e.g., supervisor support) on engagement (Li et al., 2021) and amplify the negative relationship between time urgency and strain (Li et al., 2020).
In contrast, employees who generally perceive time pressure as a challenge have likely had positive past experiences with time pressure—experiences that involved learning, achievement, or mastery (cf. Crawford et al., 2010; Ohly and Fritz, 2010). For them, time pressure, while still demanding, holds motivational potential. They may generally believe that their efforts will pay off, and that overcoming time pressure is worthwhile (cf. Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). This positive interpretation is often accompanied by positive affect (Searle and Auton, 2015), which may reduce perceived strain and foster motivation. Supporting this view, studies have shown that challenge appraisal strengthens the positive relationship between time pressure and work engagement, and weakens the negative relationship between time pressure and strain (Li et al., 2020, 2021). Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses.
H1: A general hindrance appraisal tendency interacts with weekly time pressure to predict work engagement and strain. Specifically, employees with a higher general hindrance appraisal tendency will experience (a) lower work engagement and (b) higher strain in weeks of high time pressure, compared to employees with a lower general hindrance appraisal tendency.
H2: A general challenge appraisal tendency interacts with weekly time pressure to predict work engagement and strain. Specifically, employees with a higher general challenge appraisal tendency will experience (a) higher work engagement and (b) lower strain in weeks of high time pressure, compared to employees with a lower general challenge appraisal tendency.
Variability of general time pressure appraisal tendencies—a boundary condition?
Hypotheses H1 and H2 assume that general time pressure appraisal tendencies—whether toward a challenge or a hindrance appraisal—are relatively stable patterns that shape how employees typically respond to time pressure. These tendencies are viewed as being developed over time, based on the accumulation of past experiences with time pressure situations. Accordingly, they are expected to moderate the effects of weekly time pressure on motivation and strain.
However, while some employees may have formed their general appraisal tendencies through repeated, similar experiences, others may have encountered more diverse or contradictory time pressure situations. This variability in past experiences could influence how strongly the general appraisal tendency shapes employees' reactions to current time pressure. As such, the degree of variability or stability in general appraisal tendencies may serve as a meaningful boundary condition for the effects proposed in H1 and H2. We therefore extend our theoretical model to examine whether the impact of general challenge and hindrance appraisal tendencies on the time pressure–outcome relationships depends on how stable or variable these appraisals have been over time.
Consider the following example. A project manager faces various tasks. In 1 week, time pressure results from an exciting, career-promoting project. This situation will likely be appraised as a challenge. However, the same project may occur in another week when the manager is also covering for a colleague on vacation. In that context, time pressure might be appraised as less challenging, as the employee is less likely to successfully manage all competing demands (LePine et al., 2005). This illustrates that appraisals of time pressure as either challenging or hindering can fluctuate over time within individuals (i.e., week to week). These fluctuations may also be reflected at the between-person level, in the form of a stable or variable individual's general appraisal tendency (see Downes et al., 2021). Based on this, we propose a further distinction: some employees have a general appraisal tendency grounded in relatively stable past experiences with time pressure; others base their general tendency on more variable experiences.
These differences in the stability of past appraisals may influence how general appraisal tendencies affect reactions to future time pressure situations. To explain this, we draw on the allostatic load model, which suggests that a healthy stress response to recurring demands involves adaptation (McEwen, 1998). In this model, the strain response to a repeated stressor should decrease over time, as the individual adjusts to the demand. Transferring this to the concept of general appraisal tendencies, we propose that it matters for the moderating effect of the general appraisal tendency depending on whether this tendency is based on stable past experiences or variable past experiences. In the latter case, adaptation is less likely to occur. That is, if employees sometimes appraise time pressure as hindering or challenging and sometimes not, a consistent adaptation pattern cannot develop.
Specifically, for employees with a high but stable general hindrance appraisal tendency, the demotivating and straining effect of time pressure may be reduced. Their appraisal may resemble the mindset: “Time pressure due to bureaucracy keeps me from doing my real work—but that's just how things are.” However, if the general hindrance appraisal tendency is highly variable, this form of adaptation is unlikely to occur. In such cases, the well-documented negative effects of hindrance stressors (reduced work engagement, increased strain; e.g., Li et al., 2021, 2022) are more likely to manifest. Knowing that time pressure is not always hindering may increase frustration and anger in those instances when it is, thereby intensifying strain and undermining motivation (Searle and Auton, 2015). This leads us to our third hypothesis.
H3: There is a three-way interaction between weekly time pressure, a general hindrance appraisal tendency (mean level), and the variability of a general hindrance appraisal tendency in predicting (a) work engagement and (b) strain. Specifically, when the variability of a general hindrance appraisal tendency is low, its moderating effect on the relationship between time pressure and both outcomes will be weaker; that is, time pressure will have similar effects on engagement and strain regardless of the mean level of hindrance appraisal. When the variability is high, we expect a stronger moderation: the time pressure–strain relationship will be more positive (i.e., more strain) when the general hindrance appraisal tendency is high vs. low, and the time pressure–engagement relationship will be more negative (i.e., less engagement) when the general hindrance appraisal tendency is high.
Turning to the general challenge appraisal tendency, the prediction is less clear. The limited empirical evidence on stable vs. variable challenge stressors is not fully aligned with theoretical assumptions about adaptation. Theoretically, we would expect that a high and stable challenge appraisal tendency weakens the effect of time pressure on both strain and motivation due to successful adaptation.
However, Rosen et al. (2020) found that stable challenge stressors increase attentiveness and reduce anxiety. They argue that consistent challenge demands may reduce fears of missing out on opportunities such as promotions. While Rosen et al. (2020) did not examine appraisal variability directly, their findings suggest that a stable high challenge appraisal tendency could strengthen the positive effect of time pressure on work engagement and reduce its negative effect on strain.
Downes et al. (2021) propose that opportunities for growth and development are more likely in dynamic, not stable environments. In their meta-analysis, they found first evidence that greater variability in challenge stressors may lead to increased work engagement. Based on this, we may speculate that a variable high general challenge appraisal tendency could also strengthen the positive relationship between time pressure and engagement, and buffer the negative relationship on strain.
Although this previous empirical work focuses on the variability of stressors, not appraisals, it highlights that the influence of appraisal variability—especially for challenge appraisals—may be more complex than previously assumed. Therefore, we refrain from formulating a directional hypothesis and instead propose the following open research question.
Research Question: Will there be a three-way interaction between weekly time pressure, a general challenge appraisal tendency (mean level), and the variability of the general challenge appraisal tendency in predicting (a) work engagement and (b) strain?
Together, the three hypotheses and the research question aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of how not only the content of stress appraisals (challenge vs. hindrance), but also their temporal consistency, shapes employees' motivational and emotional responses to time pressure at work.
Methods
Design and sample
Our data were collected using a convenience sampling approach, where students were asked to recruit participants from their personal networks. Individuals had to be at least 18 years old and working at least 30 h per week to be eligible to participate. We used an online survey over five consecutive work weeks. Each Friday, participants received a link to the online survey which they could use until the following Monday. The week before the weekly assessments started, participants received a link to a baseline questionnaire and gave informed consent.
We decided to use weekly intervals to assess a natural work unit (Ancona et al., 2001). Using weekly measures, the work period is short enough to be easily overviewed and provide “a self-contained set of experiences constrained by weekends” (Rosen et al., 2020, p. 1187). Additionally, using weekly measures ensures a work unit long enough to capture work projects with growth potential.
A total of N = 419 participants responded to the invitation by clicking on the link to the baseline survey. Of these, N = 33 participants did not provide informed consent, N = 60 participants failed to provide weekly data, and N = 49 participants provided data for only one week; these groups were therefore excluded from the analysis. The final sample consisted of N = 277 employees (response rate = 66%). The mean survey number per person was 4.04. Responses to the questionnaire were received from 44.4% of participants on all 5 weeks, from 24.9% on 4 weeks, from 17% on 3 weeks, and from 13.7% on 2 weeks. Those who responded in at least two of the study weeks were older and had a longer tenure than those who responded for just 1 week or only completed the baseline survey [for age t(160.24) = −7.27, p < 0.001, for tenure t(142.64) = −6.15, p < 0.001]. On all other variables (education, sex, work engagement, irritation, challenge and hindrance appraisal) no differences were detected between those who responded at least on 2 weeks and those who responded for just 1 week or only responded to the baseline survey. The average age of our sample was M = 38.6 years (SD = 13.7 years). A small majority of the sample was female (53.1%), and most had a higher academic degree (73%). The participants came from a wide variety of industries, with healthcare (13%), social services (12%), finance (12%), industry (11%), and civil service (11%) being the most frequently reported occupational fields. On average, the participants had worked for M = 10.4 years in their current job (SD = 10 years). Most participants had no leadership responsibilities (58%; lower management: 17%, middle management: 16%, upper management 9%).
Measurements
Time pressure
We used three items from the instrument for stress-oriented task analysis (ISTA, Semmer et al., 2007) to measure time pressure. A sample item is “This week, I was under time pressure” (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree”). McDonald's omega (ω) was 0.88 within-person, and 0.95 between-person.
Appraisal
We assessed cognitive appraisal by asking participants to what extent they felt their time pressure during the week was challenging (“Challenge: To what extent did you view this demand in the last week as a positive challenge?”) and hindering (“Hindrance: To what extent did this demand hinder the week's goal attainment?”; Schilbach et al., 2022). Additionally, we provided a definition for the appraisal forms: “Challenges refer to demands that may be stressful, but at the same time may help you to achieve valued goals or learn new things”; “Hindrances refer to demands that represent obstacles to success and may prevent you from working efficiently” (cf. Schilbach et al., 2022). Participants answered on a five-point scale 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).
Work engagement
To assess work engagement, we used a six-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement scale (Breevaart et al., 2012; cf. Baethge et al., 2018), with two items for each subscale (vigor, dedication, absorption). Sample items were “This week, I was immersed in my work” (absorption), “This week, my job inspired me” (dedication), and “This week, I felt strong and vigorous at my job” (vigor). Participants responded on a scale from 1 (disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree). McDonald's omega (ω) was 0.86 within-person and 0.98 between-person of the whole scale. The inter-item correlation of the subscales was 0.71 (vigor), 0.81 (dedication), and 0.89 (absorption).
Strain
We used the seven-item irritation scale (Mohr and Rigotti, 2009) to measure strain (e.g, cognitive irritation: “This week I found it difficult to unwind after work”; emotional irritation: “This week I got irritated easily, even when I did not want to”). Items were assessed on a seven-point rating scale, ranging from 1 = not applicable at all to 7 = (nearly) fully applicable. McDonald's omega (ω) was 0.88 within-person, and 0.97 between-person of the whole scale. The inter-item correlation of the two cognitive irritation items was 0.83 and McDonald's omega (ω) was 0.97 between-person and 0.89 within-person.
Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis showed that a model differentiating work engagement and irritation in their subscales fitted the data best compared to alternative models (for details see Supplementary material). Hence, our decision was to estimate and report our results for each subscale separately. All analysis codes and research materials are available at https://osf.io/b6wcd/?view_only=15b5044abc674b0c9532b3b14cddb7f4. Our analysis was done using R (R Core Team, 2020). Data are not available due to their proprietary nature. The study was approved by Ethikkommission der Medical School Hamburg (MSH 2021/123).
Analytic strategy
Our data have a multilevel structure where measurement points (assessment weeks) are nested in persons. Thus, we applied multilevel modeling to analyze our data. We started by investigating unconditional means models (null model) in order to investigate the intra-class correlation (ICC) of our dependent variables, and whether the intercept variance was different from zero. Additionally, as our data consist of repeated measurements over time, we controlled for significant time trends (linear, quadratic, and cubic), and, if applicable, autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity of the outcome (Bliese, 2022; Bliese and Ployhart, 2002). These first steps revealed an ICC of 0.57/0.68/0.68 for work engagement (vigor/dedication/absorption), and of 0.58/63 for irritation (cognitive/emotional). Additionally, for cognitive and emotional irritation we observed a negative linear time trend that was subsequently included in the models.
In all our analyses we used the grand-mean centered aggregated person-mean of challenge/hindrance appraisal as the general challenge/hindrance appraisal tendencies. We used the aggregated person standard deviation of challenge (/hindrance) appraisal as the challenge/hindrance appraisal tendency variability. The person standard deviation was not centered at the grand-mean of all person standard deviations because then a meaningful zero value (no variability) would be lost. Nevertheless, both the general challenge/hindrance appraisal tendency as well as the challenge/hindrance appraisal tendency variability are between-person variables.1 We further used the person-mean centered challenge/hindrance appraisal as weekly challenge (/hindrance) appraisal. This is a control variable.
In order to test the main effects, we included person-mean centered time pressure, the general challenge (/hindrance) appraisal tendency and the control variable weekly challenge (/hindrance) appraisal in one model.
To test our two-way moderation hypotheses (H1 and H2), we added the interaction term of the general appraisal tendency and time pressure into the analysis and investigated in a cross-level moderation how employees with higher general challenge or hindrance appraisal tendency reacted in terms of the subscales of work engagement and strain in weeks characterized by higher time pressure compared to employees' mean experiences of time pressure. To test the three-way interactions (H3 and the Research Question), we additionally introduced challenge or hindrance appraisal tendency variability as a moderator variable. For power purposes we calculated separate models for challenge and hindrance appraisal tendencies. As we tested moderation effects, we used random slope models (time pressure). Comparisons between random intercept and random slope models showed that the random slope models had a significantly better model fit (for details see Supplementary material).
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations of all study variables. The correlations are in the proposed directions. Tables 2, 3 and Supplementary Tables S2–S102 show the results of the multilevel regression analyses. The direct effect column reports the main effect of time pressure, momentary appraisal, and general appraisal tendencies with the outcome variables. Table 2 shows that the person-centered time pressure is significantly related to cognitive irritation (γ = 0.42) and emotional irritation (γ = 0.26), but no significant main effect exits between time pressure and the subscales of work engagement (vigor: γ = −0.05; dedication: γ = 0.01; absorption: γ = 0.03).3 In terms of the main effects, Supplementary Tables S1–S5 further show that the weekly hindrance appraisal and the general hindrance appraisal tendency are negatively related to all subscales of work engagement (cf. Supplementary Tables S1–S3) and positively related to both subscales of strain (cf. Supplementary Tables S4, S5). Furthermore, the weekly challenge appraisal and general challenge appraisal tendencies are positively related to all three subscales of work engagement, but only weekly challenge appraisal is negatively related to both subscales of strain (cf. Supplementary Tables S6–S10). The relationships between the general challenge appraisal tendency and both subscales of strain are not significant (cf. Supplementary Tables S9, S10).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables.
Table 2. Multilevel regression analysis of the relationship between time pressure and strain and work engagement.
Table 3. Multilevel regression analyses of the relationship between time pressure and work engagement/strain moderated by hindrance appraisal.
Table 2 and Supplementary Tables S1–S10 show that two of the 10 proposed two-way interactions reached statistical significance. There was no moderation effect of the general challenge appraisal tendency on any outcome, and there was no moderation effect of the general hindrance appraisal tendency for the outcome strain. Thus hypotheses H1b and H2a, b were rejected. The relationships between time pressure and vigor/absorption were moderated by the general hindrance appraisal tendency. Simple slope tests showed that there was a significant negative relationship between time pressure and vigor if the general hindrance appraisal tendency was high, and none if the general hindrance appraisal tendency was low [low: coef . = 0.10, t(815) = 1.86, p = 0.064; high: coef . = −0.12, t(815) = −1.97, p = 0.049]. There was a significant positive relationship between time pressure and absorption if the general hindrance appraisal tendency was low, and no relationship if the general hindrance appraisal tendency was high [low: coef . = 0.14, t(815) = 2.66, p = 0.008; high: coef . = −0.01, t(815) = −0.22, p = 0.827]. We found no interaction effect for dedication. Thus, Hypothesis H1a was partly supported. Figure 2 depicts the corresponding interaction graphs.
Figure 2. Plots of the two-way interactions of time pressure and hindrance appraisal on vigor and absorption.
The proposed three-way interactions according to the general hindrance appraisal tendency (H3) reached significance for vigor, dedication, and cognitive irritation (strain) and none according to the general challenge appraisal tendency (research question 1). Figure 3 depicts the corresponding interaction graphs. Overall, Figure 3 shows that if both general hindrance appraisal tendency and the general hindrance appraisal tendency variability are high, time pressure is strongly negatively related to vigor and dedication, and strongly positively related to cognitive strain. This pattern of results provides partial support for H3a, b. Furthermore, simple slope and simple difference tests support this graphical interpretation.
Figure 3. Plots of the three-way interactions of time pressure, hindrance appraisal (mean), and hindrance appraisal variability on vigor, dedication, and cognitive irritation.
Simple slope tests revealed that there was no significant relationship between time pressure and vigor if the standard deviation of the general hindrance appraisal tendency was low regardless of the level of the general hindrance appraisal tendency [low general hinderance appraisal tendency variability: low general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.02, t(809) = 0.34, p = 0.735; high general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = −0.05, t(809) = −0.60, p = 0.546]. If the standard deviation of the general hindrance appraisal tendency was high, the relationship between time pressure and vigor was significantly positive for a low general level of hindrance appraisal and significantly negative for a high level of general hindrance appraisal [high general hindrance appraisal tendency variability: low general hindrance appraisal: coef . = 0.25, t(809) = 2.43, p = 0.015; high general hindrance appraisal: coef . = −0.15, t(809) = −2.27, p = 0.023]. The slope difference tests showed that both positive slopes (low general hindrance appraisal tendency) differed from the high general hindrance appraisal tendency and the low general hindrance appraisal tendency variability slope (cf. Supplementary Table S11). Furthermore, the high general hindrance appraisal tendency & the low general hinderance tendency variability slope differed from the low general hindrance appraisal tendency and the high general hinderance tendency variability slope.
In the case of dedication, the slope was only significantly positive if the standard deviation of the general hindrance appraisal tendency was high and the general hindrance appraisal tendency was low; all other slopes were not significant [low general hinderance appraisal tendency variability: low general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.04, t(809) = 0.57, p = 0.571; high general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.13, t(809) = 1.63, p = 0.103; high general hinderance appraisal tendency variability: low general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.23, t(809) = 2.46, p = 0.014; high general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = −0.05, t(809) = −0.87, p = 0.387]. The slope difference tests showed that the slope of the high general hindrance appraisal tendency and the high general hinderance appraisal tendency variability differed from the low general hindrance appraisal tendency and the high general hinderance appraisal tendency variability slope and from the high general hindrance appraisal tendency and the low general hinderance appraisal tendency variability slope, but the other slopes did not differ from each other (cf. Supplementary Table S11). Thus, Hypothesis 3a is partly supported, as we supported the assumed amplifying role of a high general hindrance appraisal tendency variability on the effect of a general hindrance appraisal tendency on the relationship between time pressure and engagement in the case of vigor and dedication.
According to the relationship between time pressure and cognitive irritation, simple slope tests revealed that all slopes were significantly positive [low general hindrance appraisal tendency variability: low general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.41, t(803) = 4.94, p < 0.001; high general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.26, t(803) = 2.62, p = 0.009; high general hindrance appraisal tendency variability: low general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.23, t(803) = 1.96, p = 0.050; high general hindrance appraisal tendency: coef . = 0.52, t(803) = 6.94, p < 0.001]. The slope difference tests showed that the (steepest) high general hindrance appraisal tendency and the high general hinderance tendency variability slope differs from both “less steep” slopes: the high general hindrance appraisal tendency & the low general hinderance appraisal tendency variability slope and the low general hindrance appraisal tendency and the high general hinderance appraisal tendency variability slope (cf. Supplementary Table S11). Thus, Hypothesis 3b was partly supported, suggesting the amplifying role of the high general hindrance appraisal tendency variability on the effect of the general hindrance appraisal tendency on the time pressure–strain relationship, at least for cognitive irritation.
Additional analyses
As we did not find any interaction effects for the general challenge appraisal tendency, we decided to test two-way interactions using the momentary weekly challenge appraisal as the moderator. As can be seen in Supplementary Tables S12, S13, none of the interaction effects became significant. Neither momentary weekly challenge nor momentary weekly hindrance appraisal moderated the relationships between time pressure with work engagement or irritation.
Discussion
We aimed to show that the momentary straining and engaging effect of time pressure is determined by the general appraisal tendency of employees and variation therein. Our results show that general (between-person) appraisals have an effect on engagement and strain in the expected directions (a general challenge appraisal tendency is positively related to work engagement and strain, a general hindrance appraisal tendency is negatively related to work engagement and positively to strain), supporting the known effect of challenge and hindrance appraisal. Furthermore, we were able to show that only the general hindrance appraisal tendency moderated the effect of time pressure on two facets of work engagement. A high general hindrance appraisal tendency impedes the motivating effect of time pressure (absorption) or is even demotivating (vigor) (Hypothesis 1a partly supported). There was no moderating effect of a general challenge appraisal tendency (no support for Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, we found the proposed three-way interactions of momentary time pressure, a general hindrance appraisal tendency, and its variability, on vigor, dedication, and cognitive irritation. Low general hindrance appraisal tendency variability reduced, and high general hindrance appraisal tendency variability amplified, the moderating effect of the general hindrance appraisal tendency (Hypotheses 3a, b partly supported). None of the interactions of time pressure and the general challenge appraisal tendency (and its variability) reached significance.
Detailed discussion of the main results
According to our results, the a priori classification of time pressure as a challenge stressor (LePine et al., 2005) does not hold (cf. Baethge et al., 2018; Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019), as we found no effect on work engagement, not even when controlling for general and weekly appraisal (cf. Schilbach et al., 2023). This means that experiencing more time pressure than usual does not necessarily motivate someone (quantity of time pressure).
But the quality of time pressure does have an effect. Weekly challenge appraisal and the general challenge appraisal tendency were positively related to work engagement, which is in line with earlier findings (Kronenwett and Rigotti, 2022; Li et al., 2021, 2020; Searle and Auton, 2015). Describing one's time pressure as challenging (e.g., time pressure because of an interesting project) seems to be motivating. This qualitative evaluation of time pressure was related to motivation and not to the question of whether a person has more time pressure than usual.
However, we found that the general challenge appraisal tendency could not significantly change the effect of time pressure on motivation and strain (in contrast to earlier findings in cross-sectional studies; Li et al., 2022, 2021, 2020). This means that a person who generally perceives one's time pressure as challenging (e.g., because it often arises in a context of raised visibility and chances of promotion) will not be more engaged or less strained under greater time pressure than a person who does not usually perceive time pressure as challenging. A possible alternative explanation could be that in the case of challenges, the momentary appraisal would be decisive, not the general appraisal. This means that whether the actual week of time pressure had the potential for mastery, promotion, and growth might be important. Rosen et al. (2020) as well as Downes et al. (2021) assumed that there are single phases of increased time pressure affording chances for promotion. While we found that people with a general “challenge attitude” do not react differently to their weekly time pressure, a weekly challenge appraisal could make the difference. We tested this assumption in additional analyses but found no interaction effects. It is possible that weeks of challenging time pressure are not an appropriate unit to capture promotion opportunities. Instead, it might be more meaningful to assess challenging time pressure at the task or project level. Thus, future studies could examine the effects of single tasks/projects of time pressure that involve either the prospect of incentives or the potential for mastery and growth.
While the general challenge appraisal tendency did not have the assumed (moderating) effects, the general hindrance appraisal tendency did. First, weekly hindrance appraisal and the general hindrance appraisal tendency were negatively related to work engagement and positively to strain, which concurs with the findings of earlier studies (Kronenwett and Rigotti, 2022; Li et al., 2020; Searle and Auton, 2015). If the time pressure of a week or a person is appraised as hindering (e.g., time pressure has (usually) been an additional thwart of ones' central goals), engagement is lower and strain is higher than if this is not the case. More importantly, we found that the general hindrance appraisal tendency impedes a positive relationship between time pressure and two subdimensions of work engagement (vigor and absorption). A possible interpretation is that if a person generally experiences time pressure as hindering (like Albert), momentary time pressure has no chance to have an engaging effect.
In addition, we found that a general hindrance appraisal tendency variability amplified the effect of the general hindrance appraisal tendency on the relationship between time pressure with vigor and dedication. If variability was high, time pressure was either negatively (not) related to vigor (/dedication) in case of a high general hindrance appraisal tendency or positively related in the case of low general hindrance appraisal tendency. In the case of cognitive irritation, we also found an amplifying effect of a high general hinderance appraisal tendency variability on the positive time pressure–strain relationship. We found no difference between the slopes if the variability was low (for engagement and irritation). To better understand this, we can rely on the findings of Rosen et al. (2020). Rosen et al. (2020) found that a changing working environment increases our attention: we start to monitor our surroundings. Supposedly, the variability of the general hindrance appraisal tendency means that employees invest energy in appraisal processes, so the appraisal becomes relevant. In the case of a high general hindrance appraisal tendency, time pressure has a demotivating effect, likewise especially straining (employees act according to their appraisals). However, if the general hindrance appraisal tendency is low, time pressure retains its challenging effect. The graph even suggests that the motivating effect of time pressure accelerates (compared to a low general hinderance appraisal tendency variability). Thus, we assume that someone who actively appraises time pressure (experiences some change of it) will react more negatively toward hindering time pressure and even motivated toward not hindering time pressure. Future studies should test whether monitoring is an explaining mechanism.
In contrast, we found an adaptation effect if the variability of the general hindrance appraisal tendency was low. The slopes between time pressure and vigor/dedication were not significant if the variability of the general hindrance appraisal tendency was low (independent of the general level of hindrance appraisal). This supports our assumption that the general hindrance appraisal tendency will lose its demotivating effect if time pressure is always experienced as hindering (McEwen, 1998). People seem to get used to hindering time pressure and it loses its demotivating effect. Further, more time pressure than usual is similarly straining irrespective of its general hindrance appraisal if the employees do not vary (a lot) in their general appraisal. Future studies should examine the possible adaptation process more in detail. What is happening exactly? Can any coping mechanisms be found?
Theoretical contributions
Our study makes three important theoretical contributions to the literature. First, we corroborate the existing literature claiming that the a priori classification of time pressure as a challenge stressor is not supported by empirical results (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019). Further to these reports, we show that weekly appraisal as well as the general (hindrance and) challenge appraisal tendency has a (de)motivating effect. The strain effect depends largely on the amount of time pressure itself and its weekly appraisal.
Second, when talking of interaction effects of the general appraisal tendency on the time pressure–strain/motivation relationship, we found that the general hindrance appraisal tendency (and its variability) has an effect but not the general challenge appraisal tendency. This is a first indication that experiencing challenges is something that happens in the moment (e.g., one chance for promotion), which follows the line of reasoning of Rosen et al. (2020) and Downes et al. (2021). Additionally, a general hindrance appraisal tendency has an impact on the (straining and) motivating effect of time pressure, either because of a negative attitude of the person or general negative job characteristics. It would be interesting to distinguish between these two possible causes of a general hindrance appraisal tendency in future studies and to test which role previous expectations plays in that process.
Third, the difference in effects between a low and a high general hindrance appraisal tendency variability, in particular, enables us to extend the challenge–hindrance framework by making assumptions about adaptation. Employees seem to become adapted to hindering time pressure if they experience the same level of it over 5 weeks. In this case of a low general hinderance appraisal tendency variability, the hindrance experience of time pressure on motivation and strain is not as pronounced as under the condition of high variability. Future studies could investigate these assumed adaptation effects in more detail. It would be interesting to know whether becoming adapted to hindering time pressure becomes a resilience factor that protects employees against the stressful and demotivating effects of unchangeable hindrances, or whether in the long run it is detrimental to their health (e.g., in terms of overcommitment).
Limitations
Despite the strengths and theoretical contributions of the study, it is not without limitations. We used a fixed time interval of 5 weeks to generate the mean and variability values of appraisal. Five weeks may be too short to gain a valid impression of the typical time pressure appraisal of a person. It is possible that the last 5 weeks were somehow special. However, it may also be that recent experiences shape our expectations most (more than anything that goes back further). The construal level theory of psychological distance proposes that more (timely) distant experiences are more construal (Trope and Liberman, 2010). That means that it is not the “real experience” that is remembered and that impacts our evaluation/behavior, but the abstract idea of it (Trope and Liberman, 2010). Thus, for more distant experiences, it makes more sense to ask for a retrospective evaluation now than to assess the experience at the time it occurred, if the goal is to predict actual behavior or thoughts. The distance–construal relationship is exponential (Weber-Fechner law: Trope and Liberman, 2010); the more distant an experience is, the more construal is it in our mind (less related to the actual experience). There are preliminary studies that try to consider this when examining accumulation effects by giving more distal events lower weights (Keller and Meier, 2024; Schilbach et al., 2024). As we did not want to examine accumulation effects, we decided not to use a weighted mean. We further decided not to use measure once the general level of appraisal (between-level), as we also wanted to know the variability of time pressure appraisal. Thus, it was necessary to assess the time pressure appraisal on the within level (weekly), as it can't be recommended to ask for the assumed variability.
The general appraisal tendency and its variability are aggregated above the whole timeframe of 5 weeks. Thus, strictly speaking, we allow the future (appraisal of the whole 5 weeks) to (partly) predict the past (e.g., effect of the time pressure of the first week on the vigor of the first week). Assuming that general appraisal and appraisal variability are trait variables, this design is justifiable. Furthermore, the future cannot predict the past, thus the effect is formed by the stable component of the variance of these aggregated measures. Future studies could try to measure general appraisal tendency and its variation in the weeks before, but will face compliance problems (and non-response bias) when extending the time period of the study.
Practical implications
Our results show that time pressure itself is not motivating but straining, and that even a general challenge appraisal tendency is not able to facilitate the challenge effect of time pressure, but is a main effect of the challenge appraisal itself. We would therefore suggest to organizations that it is not advisable to increase time pressure on employees, but to create challenges. As both challenge and hindrance appraisals are subjective, we cannot suggest exactly which working conditions organizations should increase. It will be necessary to ask employees which conditions they perceive as challenging and hindering.
According to the general hindrance appraisal tendency, we found that employees are able to adapt to hindering time pressure as long as it is stable in its appraisal. This would suggest that employees possibly develop functional coping strategies. If hindering time pressure cannot be avoided, companies will profit from strengthening the resilience of their employees by keeping the variability of hindering time pressures low. Furthermore, events involving high (extreme) hindering time pressure need to be avoided.
Nevertheless, we found clear main effects, which show that time pressure leads to an increase of strain and that hindrance appraisal is negatively related to work engagement and positively related to strain. Companies would therefore be well-advised to keep time pressure—especially hindering time pressure—to a minimum.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because it has been promised to the participants. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to YW5qYS5iYWV0aGdlQG1lZGljYWxzY2hvb2wtaGFtYnVyZy5kZQ==.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethikkommission der Medical School Hamburg (MSH 2021/123). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
AB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TV-H: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/forgp.2025.1534333/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^This strategy has the advantage over a single trait measure of appraisal that some situational measurement errors are centered out. It is also more ecologically valid because a concrete situation is being assessed. We expect trait measures to be more confounded with personality than appraisals of time pressure in a specific time frame, which should be more influenced by the concrete stressor than by personal characteristics.
2. ^For reasons of space, we decided to report only a shortened version of tables of analyses that included hindrance ratings on vigor, dedication, absorption, and cognitive irritation in the manuscript, as these analyses produced significant interactive effects.
3. ^We have also tested curvilinear effects of time pressure and have found none (cognitive irritation: γ = −0.03; p = 0.441; emotional irritation: γ = 0.07; p = 0.068; vigor: γ = −0.01; p = 0.793; dedication: γ = −0.00; p = 0.958; absorption: γ = −0.02; p = 0.515).
References
Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., and Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 512–529. doi: 10.2307/3560239
Baethge, A., Deci, N., Dettmers, J., and Rigotti, T. (2019). “Some days won't end ever”: working faster and longer as a boundary condition for challenge versus hindrance effects of time pressure. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 24, 322–332. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000121
Baethge, A., Menhardt, A.-K., Frontzkowski, Y., and Schilbach, M. (2023). Two sides of the same coin: motivating and demotivating mediation paths of time pressure and their relationship with strain. Anxiety Stress Coping 37, 86–99. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2023.2183389
Baethge, A., Rigotti, T., and Roe, R. (2015). Just more of the same, or different? An integrative theoretical framework for the study of cumulative interruptions at work. Eur. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 24, 308–323. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.897943
Baethge, A., Vahle-Hinz, T., Schulte-Braucks, J., and van Dick, R. (2018). A matter of time? Challenging and hindering effects of time pressure on work engagement. Work Stress 32, 228–247. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1415998
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands–resources theory: ten years later. Annu. Rev. Organiz. Psychol. Organiz. Behav. 10, 25–53. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933
Bliese, P. D. (2022). Multilevel Modeling in R (2.7). A Brief Introduction to R, the Multilevel Package and the nlme Package. Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2024).
Bliese, P. D., and Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: model building, testing, and illustrations. Organiz. Res. Methods 5, 362–387. doi: 10.1177/109442802237116
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state work engagement. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28, 305–312. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000111
Crawford, E. R., Lepine, J. A., and Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 834–848. doi: 10.1037/a0019364
Downes, P. E., Reeves, C. J., McCormick, B. W., Boswell, W. R., and Butts, M. M. (2021). Incorporating job demand variability into job demands theory: a meta-analysis. J. Manag. 47, 1630–1656. doi: 10.1177/0149206320916767
Gralla, M. S., Guendel, H., Mueller, A., Braehler, E., Häuser, W., Kruse, J., et al. (2023). Validation of the irritation scale on a representative German sample: new normative data. Sci. Rep. 13:15374. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-41829-4
Keller, A. C., and Meier, L. L. (2024). It's a new day – is it? Testing accumulation and sensitisation effects of workload on fatigue in daily diary studies. Work Stress 38, 231–247. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2023.2251124
Kern, M., Semmer, N. K., and Baethge, A. (2023). Energized or distressed by time pressure? The role of time pressure illegitimacy. Eur. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 32, 575–598. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2023.2198708
Kronenwett, M., and Rigotti, T. (2022). All's well that ends well!? Moderating effects of goal progress on the relation between challenge and hindrance appraisal and well-being. J. Manag. Psychol. 37, 444–466. doi: 10.1108/JMP-11-2019-0618
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur. J. Pers. 1, 141–169. doi: 10.1002/per.2410010304
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., and LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 764–775. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921
Li, P., Peeters, M. C. W., Taris, T. W., and Zhang, Y. (2021). In the eye of the beholder: challenge and hindrance appraisals of work characteristics and their implications for employee's well-being. Front. Psychol. 1:708309. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708309
Li, P., Taris, T. W., and Peeters, M. C. W. (2020). Challenge and hindrance appraisals of job demands: one man's meat, another man's poison? Anxiety Stress Coping 33, 31–46. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2019.1673133
Li, P., Taris, T. W., and Peeters, M. C. W. (2022). Today's challenge may be tomorrow's hindrance (and vice versa): longitudinal changes in employee's appraisals of job demands and their outcomes. J. Occup. Organiz. Psychol. 95, 521–549. doi: 10.1111/joop.12384
Mazzola, J. J., and Disselhorst, R. (2019). Should we be “challenging” employees?: a critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress. J. Organiz. Behav. 40, 949–961. doi: 10.1002/job.2412
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N. Engl. J. Med. 338, 171–179. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199801153380307
Mohr, G., and Rigotti, T. (2009). “Irritation (Gereiztheit),” in Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. ZIS Version 13.00, ed. A. Glöckner-Rist (Bonn: GESIS).
Mohr, G., Rigotti, T., and Müller, A. (2005). Irritation - ein Instrument zur Erfassung psychischer Beanspruchung im Arbeitskontext. Skalen- und Itemparameter aus 15 Studien [Irritation—an instrument assessing mental strain in working contexts. Scale and item parameters from 15 studies]. Zeitschrift Arbeits Organisationspsychol. 49, 44–48. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089.49.1.44
Ohly, S., and Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: a multi-level study. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 543–565. doi: 10.1002/job.633
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., and Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 108–123. doi: 10.1002/job.2115
Prem, R., Scheel, T. E., Weigelt, O., Hoffmann, K., and Korunka, C. (2018). Procrastination in daily working life: a diary study on within-person processes that link work characteristics to workplace procrastination. Front. Psychol. 9:1087. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg,0.2018.01087
R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org/ (Accessed May 15, 2024).
Reis, D., Hoppe, A., Arndt, C., and Lischetzke, T. (2017). Time pressure with state vigour and state absorption: are they non-linearly related? Eur. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 26, 94–106. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224232
Rosen, C. C., Dimotakis, N., Cole, M. S., Taylor, S. G., Simon, L. S., Smith, T. A., et al. (2020). When challenges hinder: an investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 1181–1206. doi: 10.1037/apl0000483
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schilbach, M., Arnold, M., Baethge, A., and Rigotti, T. (2022). Hindrance demands as a boundary condition to the appraisal of challenge demands. Anxiety Stress Coping 36, 434–443. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2022.2108019
Schilbach, M., Baethge, A., and Rigotti, T. (2024). How past work stressors influence psychological well-being in the face of current adversity: affective reactivity to adversity as an explanatory mechanism. J. Bus. Psychol. 39, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10869-023-09922-7
Schilbach, M., Haun, V. C., Baethge, A., and Rigotti, T. (2023). The challenging and hindering potential of time pressure: qualitative job demands as suppressor variables. J. Business Psychol. 38, 1061–1075. doi: 10.1007/s10869-022-09844-w
Schmitt, A., Ohly, S., and Kleespies, N. (2015). Time pressure promotes work engagement. J. Pers. Psychol. 14, 28–36. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000119
Searle, B. J., and Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety Stress Coping 28, 121–143. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2014.931378
Semmer, N., Zapf, D., and Dunckel, H. (2007). ISTA – Instrument zur Stressbezogenen Arbeitsanalyse (Version 6.1). Bern; Frankfurt; Flensburg.
Keywords: challenge-hindrance framework, time pressure, appraisal, variability, temporal dynamics
Citation: Baethge A and Vahle-Hinz T (2025) Temporal dynamics in time pressure appraisal—testing the effects of a general time pressure appraisal tendency. Front. Organ. Psychol. 3:1534333. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2025.1534333
Received: 25 November 2024; Revised: 06 November 2025;
Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 09 December 2025.
Edited by:
Marcie LePine, Arizona State University, United StatesReviewed by:
Johannes Wendsche, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, GermanyRosine L. J. Rutten, University College Maastricht (UCM), Netherlands
Copyright © 2025 Baethge and Vahle-Hinz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Anja Baethge, YW5qYS5iYWV0aGdlQG1lZGljYWxzY2hvb2wtaGFtYnVyZy5kZQ==