Do within- and between-person results converge? A cross-level comparison of the Challenge-Hindrance Model of Stress

Abstract

Introduction

A cross-level comparison of the Challenge-Hindrance Model of Stress (CHM) provides important theoretical insights into the preciseness of the model and the boundary conditions guiding it. Furthermore, knowing whether all individuals share the same within-person relationships (i.e., general law) provides further important insight into the accuracy of the CHM.

Objective

We thus examined whether results from the between- and within-person level are conceptually similar and converge, by testing homology across levels in significance, sign, and magnitude, and whether all individuals were characterized by the same within-person relationship referred to as a general law. Drawing from instrumentality theory, we also examined the role of goal value, goal expectancy, and goal attainment to explain the relationship between stress appraisals and on-task effort.

Method

In a diary study, we collected data from 108 students over 14 consecutive days while preparing for an exam (n = 1420 observations).

Results

A multilevel structural equation model revealed that homology was present only in less than 50% of the relationships examined, limiting the generalizability of the CHM. In addition, we found no general law for any of the associations, suggesting that students possibly are not characterized by the same relationship, further limiting the predictions of the CHM.

Conclusion

We conclude that the population-level results of the CHM might not apply to specific individuals and consideration should be given to refining the model.