ABSTRACT

Previous meta-analyses showed that challenge stressors are, though stressful, also motivating. However, their hypothesised gains related to learning are less well understood. In addition to the lack of meta-analytical assessments, there are conflicting theoretical perspectives on the learning effects of challenge stressors. In contrast to the challenge–hindrance stressor framework, action regulation theory posits that cognitive demands, but not workload, are conducive to learning. Furthermore, job control, the level of a stressor, and the type of occupation may moderate the effects of these two challenge stressors. Based on 417 independent samples collectively including 319,306 individuals, this meta-analysis tested the associations of workload and cognitive demands with learning, motivation, and strain and examined potential moderation effects. Results showed that workload was negatively related to learning and motivation and positively related to strain. Cognitive demands were positively related to learning and motivation and negatively related to strain. The detrimental effects of workload were more pronounced for care and social worker and for measures of overload. No moderations were found for country-level job control. Taken together, the results cast doubts on whether stressors can actually be simultaneously detrimental and beneficial, as neither workload nor cognitive demands were found to have such a pattern.

摘要

之前的荟萃分析表明，挑战压力源虽然有压力，但也具有激励作用。然而，他们假设的与学习相关的收益却不太为人所知。除了缺乏元分析评估之外，关于挑战压力源的学习效果还存在相互矛盾的理论观点。与挑战-阻碍压力源框架相反，行动调节理论认为认知需求而不是工作量有利于学习。此外，工作控制、压力源的水平和职业类型可能会减轻这两种挑战压力源的影响。这项荟萃分析基于 417 个独立样本（包括 319,306 人），测试了工作量和认知需求与学习、动机和压力之间的关联，并检验了潜在的调节效应。结果表明，工作量与学习和动机呈负相关，与压力呈正相关。认知需求与学习和动机正相关，与压力负相关。工作量对护理人员和社会工作者以及超负荷措施的不利影响更为明显。没有发现国家层面的工作控制有任何节制。总而言之，这些结果让人怀疑压力源是否实际上可以同时有害和有益，因为工作量和认知需求都没有发现这种模式。工作量对护理人员和社会工作者以及超负荷措施的不利影响更为明显。没有发现国家层面的工作控制有任何节制。总而言之，这些结果让人怀疑压力源是否实际上可以同时有害和有益，因为工作量和认知需求都没有发现这种模式。工作量对护理人员和社会工作者以及超负荷措施的不利影响更为明显。没有发现国家层面的工作控制有任何节制。总而言之，这些结果让人怀疑压力源是否实际上可以同时有害和有益，因为工作量和认知需求都没有发现这种模式。