Stressors, Achievement Motivation, and Academic Performance among University Faculty in China: The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy
Saved in:
| Title: | Stressors, Achievement Motivation, and Academic Performance among University Faculty in China: The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Mao Zhao (ORCID |
| Source: | Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(4):1182-1195. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | College Faculty, Academic Achievement, Stress Variables, Self Efficacy, Teacher Effectiveness, Correlation, Universities, Teaching Experience, Teacher Characteristics, Barriers, Foreign Countries, Self Evaluation (Individuals), Stress Management, Teacher Motivation |
| Geographic Terms: | China |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pits.23388 |
| ISSN: | 0033-3085 1520-6807 |
| Abstract: | This research scrutinizes the link between academic stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) and the academic performance of university faculty, while also considering the mediating role of achievement motivation. Furthermore, the study evaluates the moderating influence of faculty self-efficacy on the relationship between these stressors and academic performance. The sample encompassed 7000 full-time teachers from universities across Sichuan Province, China, with approximately 55% female participants and an average teaching experience of 13 years. Faculty academic stressors (challenge and hindrance stressors), achievement motivation, self-efficacy, and academic performance were all assessed using self-report techniques. The application of structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between academic stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) and academic performance. Achievement motivation was found to entirely mediate the effects of academic stressors (challenge and hindrance stressors) on academic performance. In addition, the study underscored the moderating impact of self-efficacy on the relationship between faculty academic stressors and academic performance. The significance of enhancing faculty academic performance through stress reduction, increased achievement motivation, and self-efficacy is discussed. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1461720 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHjLEZ3EmIcXEvy4TjrHPjqAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEAyDeDCfHFB3GcfwQIBEICBm2rS8Sn6mYGr1Z5dr6PzMCV7v1wgxFC_lgpEC_BLo_cBUBU_QiafnmR3SHh2f-ubEttfe_j14kP2AXDPRnjhhAq7pad--bYFSjo6Gt6jBhANgCAr_uWxBcqwNYLJLmoUJh6MbR1QGn0yu4rM5tH4BELY1aHjg5KCW1h92kCApxuTptsqOYJhXLKKZtTdG34AAAjX70vPLCgxvbsP Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183755642;pis01apr.25;2025Mar19.05:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183755642-1">Stressors, Achievement Motivation, and Academic Performance Among University Faculty in China: The Moderating Effect of Self‐Efficacy </title> <p>This research scrutinizes the link between academic stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) and the academic performance of university faculty, while also considering the mediating role of achievement motivation. Furthermore, the study evaluates the moderating influence of faculty self‐efficacy on the relationship between these stressors and academic performance. The sample encompassed 7000 full‐time teachers from universities across Sichuan Province, China, with approximately 55% female participants and an average teaching experience of 13 years. Faculty academic stressors (challenge and hindrance stressors), achievement motivation, self‐efficacy, and academic performance were all assessed using self‐report techniques. The application of structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between academic stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) and academic performance. Achievement motivation was found to entirely mediate the effects of academic stressors (challenge and hindrance stressors) on academic performance. In addition, the study underscored the moderating impact of self‐efficacy on the relationship between faculty academic stressors and academic performance. The significance of enhancing faculty academic performance through stress reduction, increased achievement motivation, and self‐efficacy is discussed.</p> <p>Summary: Challenge and hindrance stressors are positively and negatively related to academic performance, respectively.Achievement motivation mediates the relationship challenge and hindrance stressors and academic performance.The indirect effect of challenge and hindrance stressors on academic performance through achievement motivation is moderated by self‐efficacy.</p> <p>Keywords: academic performance; achievement motivation; challenge stressors; hindrance stressors; self‐efficacy; university faculty</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The advent of the 21st century has seen work‐related stress assume a prevalence reminiscent of a common flu outbreak. The resultant effects are a considerable cause for concern, given the negative impact on employees' physical health, mental well‐being, and work efficiency (Lu [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref1">51</reflink>]). The study of work‐related stress has been a subject of interest in Western countries since the last century, and with the stiffening competition in the job market, academic interest in the topic has only surged. The correlation between work stress and job performance remains a critical area for both academics and industry practitioners.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-3">Contextual Background</hd> <p>In tandem with the growth of science and technology in China and the transition to a knowledge‐based economy, higher learning institutions are now emphasizing the academic performance of their faculty (Rafi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref2">64</reflink>]). It is becoming increasingly evident that Chinese universities have heightened expectations of their faculty, prompting an increased academic focus on the implications of professional stress (Han et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref3">33</reflink>]; R. Yang et al. [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref4">86</reflink>]). To prompt faculty to engage more in research activities and enhance their academic performance, universities have introduced a series of assessment standards for academic performance. They have also proposed a strict job appointment system. These new systems have led to a reduced assessment period and increased assessment tasks, placing faculty under immense research pressure, hitherto unparalleled (Almossa [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]; Gao and Li [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]). In response to this pressure, academic scholars postulate that the increased research stress heightens faculties' psychological stress. This, in turn, has the potential to negatively impact academic performance and even trigger instances of academic misconduct. Therefore, they suggest that measures should be put in place to alleviate research pressure (Fang [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]; P. G. Zhang and Liao [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref8">93</reflink>]). However, the question arises: does reduced research pressure indeed translate to improved academic performance? This question is particularly poignant in light of recent developments in the academic landscape of Chinese universities. Cases of academic plagiarism, academic falsification, and the publication of numerous low‐value papers stand in stark contrast to a plethora of high‐level academic achievements—all under the same high‐pressure environment. The lack of consensus on whether research pressure is a facilitator or inhibitor of academic performance may well be due to the existence of varying types of academic stressors.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-4">Distinction of Stressors</hd> <p>Cavanaugh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]) introduced the classification of stressors into challenge and hindrance types, providing fresh insights into the field of stress research. This categorization not only serves to reconcile inconsistent findings in stress research but also enhances the relevance and efficacy of stress management strategies. Stressors indeed have an impact on individual performance, but their effects are not necessarily negative. According to Cavanaugh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]), challenge stressors, which promote personal growth, can positively impact performance. Challenge stressors are a category of stressors that can positively impact employees. These include high workload, time pressure, job scope, and work responsibility. While these stressors can induce pressure, they also offer opportunities for future growth, rewards, and benefits, ultimately stimulating a sense of achievement (Abbas and Raja [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]). On the contrary, hindrance stressors, which limit personal growth or achievement, may have a negative effect on performance. They include organizational policies, cumbersome and prolonged procedures, role ambiguity, and concerns about job security (Kang, Zhang, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]). However, there is a noticeable gap in research exploring the relationship between these stressors and academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-5">Moderating and Mediating Factors</hd> <p>In addition to the direct effects of stressors, the relationship between challenge‐hindrance stressors and job performance is complicated by the presence of various mediating and moderating mechanisms (LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]). Faculty members exhibit substantial variations in stress responses and academic performance levels when faced with similar academic stressors (Travis et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref14">76</reflink>]). Some faculty members can become mentally stressed, leading to adverse physical reactions, reduced work efficiency, and negatively impacted academic performance (Urbina‐Garcia [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref15">80</reflink>]). Others can resist the negative effects of stress, showing optimism and positive coping behaviors, and achieving a large number of high‐level results (Y. Zhang, Zhang, and Hua [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref16">94</reflink>]). Consequently, the effect of research stressors on research performance depends not only on the stressor itself but also on the individual's response to the stress. Past research has indicated that work motivation and internal personal psychological factors are significant mechanisms linking stressors to outcomes (Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]; Karatepe et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref18">42</reflink>]). This includes the mediating effect of achievement motivation and the moderating effect of self‐efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-6">Existing Research and Gaps</hd> <p>Several studies have explored the relationship between stressors, motivation, self‐efficacy, and the academic performance of university faculty members (Ishaq and Mahmood [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>]; Travis et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref20">76</reflink>]). Empirical studies suggest that challenge stressors are positively associated with positive work behaviors, job performance, and job satisfaction, while hindrance stressors exhibit the opposite effect (Boswell, Olson‐Buchanan, and LePine [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]; Podsakoff, Lepine, and Lepine [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref22">62</reflink>]). According to the resource conservation theory, individuals are motivated to conserve existing resources and acquire new ones (Rodell and Judge [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref23">65</reflink>]). Stressors, both challenge and hindrance in nature, have a significant impact on an individual's propensity to either invest in resource augmentation or resource conservation, thus affecting their overall resource levels. Research conducted by Webster, Beehr, and Christiansen ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref24">83</reflink>]) demonstrates that challenge stressors contribute positively to work efficiency and strengthen the conviction toward diligence. The challenge stressors are perceived by individuals as manageable and beneficial for their work performance and growth. The challenging stressors faced by university faculty include teaching pressure, time constraints, and academic article writing (Agyapong et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). Contrarily, hindrance stressors appear to yield the inverse effect, leading not only to a lack of motivation but also to actively inhibiting performance. Moreover, hindrance stressors are perceived by individuals as difficult to overcome, obstructing the achievement of career development. Examples of hindrance stressors for university faculty include organizational politics, teacher‐student conflict, emotional stress, and competitive pressure (Si [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref26">70</reflink>]). Regrettably, the implications of these research findings are not extensively extrapolated to academic contexts, which presumably experience various stressors similar to those found in occupational environments. While there exists a well‐established connection between faculty self‐efficacy and research outcomes, our understanding of the correlation between self‐efficacy, job stress, and faculty work performance is noticeably limited.</p> <p>Recognizing these gaps in prior investigations, the present study seeks to integrate the concepts of achievement motivation and self‐efficacy. Our intention is to delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms that dictate the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on academic research performance. This research is conducted with a focus on offering valuable insights that could foster the healthy, systematic, and harmonious progression of academic work within the university context, particularly in China.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-7">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183755642-8">The Influence of Challenge‐Hindrance Stressor Framework on Academic Performance</hd> <p>One of the key elements that profoundly shapes the landscape at the core of academic research is the interaction of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and their subsequent impact on academic performance. It is crucial to distinguish between these two types of stressors as they each have unique characteristics and effects on a faculty member's research capacity and academic career progression.</p> <p>Challenge stressors, as defined by several scholars, embody the beneficial elements that stimulate growth and advancement in an academic context (Zhu, He, and Wang [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref27">98</reflink>]). In the field of higher education, the primary sources of challenge stressors for university faculty are the quantitative assessments of research output and the evaluation and promotion systems (Saroyan and Frenay [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref28">67</reflink>]). Due to their relatively low academic and economic status, Chinese faculty members often have limited access to research projects and funding (Huang, Pang, and Yu [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref29">37</reflink>]). Coupled with heavy teaching responsibilities, this results in relatively little time available for research, presenting significant challenges to effectively conducting research work. Furthermore, T. Zhou, Law, and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref30">96</reflink>]) stated that Chinese faculty members act as catalysts for research motivation, sparking an impetus that fuels the research process. Successfully overcoming these stressors often engenders a heightened sense of accomplishment and self‐efficacy in the faculty member. This perceived success has wide‐ranging rewards, including but not limited to improved academic performance, promotion opportunities, and the opening of avenues for future development (Johnson [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref31">39</reflink>]; Watt and Richardson [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref32">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conversely, hindrance stressors represent the more obstructive facets of the academic stress spectrum. These stressors constitute formidable hurdles that inhibit faculty members' research activities, often proving tough to overcome. Hindrance stressors can lead to the proliferation of research‐related stress, suppress enthusiasm for research, dampen motivation, and stunt the development of an academic career (Al‐Zoubi and Younes [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]; Mahfouz [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref34">53</reflink>]). They can also serve as roadblocks to the enhancement of academic performance. For example, the emotional stress of university faculty primarily stems from interpersonal relationships. Conflicts can arise in their interactions with leaders and colleagues due to competition and differences in opinion. In addition, conflicts in the relationships between teachers and students can negatively affect faculty members' emotions. These stresses can hinder the development of academic capabilities among university faculty (Schonert‐Reichl [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref35">68</reflink>]). In understanding the role of these stressors, it is important to consider how performance is conceptualized within an academic setting.</p> <p>Two distinct viewpoints emerge from the discourse on the definition of job performance—with one school of thought interpreting performance as an outcome, and the other viewing it as a behavior (Alonderiene and Majauskaite [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]; Lau [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]). The outcome‐based school of thought aligns job performance with task completion. Performance is evaluated based on both the quantity and quality of completed tasks (Lennard et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]; Miller [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref39">56</reflink>]). For instance, Bernardin and Beatty ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]) defined job performance as the tangible records of output achieved by executing a specific job within a particular time frame. Within this perspective, the evaluation of research performance in higher education is predominantly outcome‐oriented. This approach employs econometric methods to quantify teachers' research capabilities and scholarly level, considering the quality and quantity of published papers or projects initiated, academic books authored, and awards received (J. Yang, Gao, and Li [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref41">85</reflink>]). On the other hand, the behavior‐based school of thought, represented by Zeng ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref42">91</reflink>]), interprets academic performance from a different perspective. In his study of the relationship between job stressors, stress responses, performance, and turnover propensity among university faculty, academic performance was assessed using a behavior‐oriented approach. This perspective acknowledges that performance is not solely about the end result, but also encompasses the behaviors exhibited throughout the process, including creativity, collaboration, and commitment.</p> <p>Further studies, such as those conducted by LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref43">47</reflink>]), have attempted to quantify the effects of these stressors on job performance. Ma, Peng, and Wu ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref44">52</reflink>]) indicated that challenge stressors directly and positively impact job performance, while hindrance stressors exhibit a direct and negative effect on performance outcomes. Similar conclusions were drawn by Moin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref45">57</reflink>]), who affirmed that challenge stressors were positively correlated with positive work behaviors, while hindrance stressors were more likely associated with negative work behaviors. However, despite these insightful studies, the link between challenge‐hindrance stressors and academic performance remains an under‐researched area. Many scholars have delved into the influence of challenge and hindrance stressors in various work contexts, but an in‐depth examination of these stressors in an academic context, particularly their impact on academic performance has been largely overlooked. This study contends that academic stress, much like job stress, exists in the dual forms of challenge and hindrance stressors. Furthermore, it asserts that these two types of stressors have disparate effects on academic performance. As such, a more comprehensive and detailed examination of their impact is both necessary and timely. This research aims to bridge this gap in the literature by providing an in‐depth exploration of the relationship between these two types of stressors and academic performance. By unraveling the intricate dynamics between challenge and hindrance stressors and academic performance, this study hopes to not only contribute to the body of knowledge in this field but also to inform practices in academic institutions. The insights gained may enable educators and administrators to better manage these stressors and, ultimately, enhance academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-9">The Mediating Role of Achievement Motivation</hd> <p>Interplay of Achievement Motivation as a Mediating Factor Introduced by McClelland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]) from Harvard University, achievement motivation is a psychological construct that defines an individual's internal drive to seek tasks they deem significant and valuable. Striving for success and upholding high standards of accomplishment, individuals with heightened achievement motivation channel their energy into achieving success (Anderson, Hildreth, and Howland [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]). The concept of achievement motivation finds its roots in Murray ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref48">59</reflink>]) theory of achievement needs, emphasizing an individual's intrinsic desire to perform at peak potential and to surpass their counterparts in achieving success (Covington [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]). McClelland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref50">54</reflink>]) encapsulated four key characteristics defining high‐achievement motivators. First, these individuals manifest success‐oriented and moderate risk‐taking behaviors. They approach tasks, keeping in mind the associated risks and engaging only in those with an acceptable level of uncertainty. Second, they exhibit an insightful understanding of task‐related feedback. They desire feedback on their performance and utilize it to progressively sort out successful outcomes from unsuccessful ones. Third, high‐achievement motivators derive intrinsic satisfaction from their successes. Their reward is more aligned with the internal recognition of achievement and effectiveness than external materialistic gratification such as awards or salary increments. Lastly, they pursue pragmatic and attainable goals. They do not chase unrealistic dreams; instead, they design achievable life plans that are grounded in reality. Motivation has been the cornerstone in comprehending the impact of challenge and hindrance stressors on work‐related variables.</p> <p>Researchers have attributed the positive implications of challenge stressors to the enhancement of motivation (Lin et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref51">49</reflink>]; Prem et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref52">63</reflink>]; van Oortmerssen, Caniëls, and van Assen [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref53">60</reflink>]). Lepine, Lepine, and Jackson ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]) suggested that individuals generally view challenge stressors as positive and stimulating, thereby fueling their drive to learn and overcome pressures to achieve favorable results. The outcomes from the meta‐analysis of stressors and job performance indicate that challenge stressors enhance job performance primarily by amplifying motivation, while hindrance stressors curtail motivation, leading to a dip in performance. Given their high education, intelligence quotient, and research responsibilities, university faculty are particularly likely to be driven by achievement motivation in their research endeavors (Shafait et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref55">69</reflink>]; Turnbull, Chugh, and Luck [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref56">78</reflink>]). These individuals with high‐achievement motivation prefer engaging in challenging work with high‐reaching goals, seeking the rewarding sense of accomplishment derived from diligently completing tasks (Groening and Binnewies [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]). Existing literature has confirmed the significant positive correlation between the achievement motivation of university faculties and their job performance (Guo et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref58">31</reflink>]; Sanyal and Hisam [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref59">66</reflink>]). In the context of challenge stressors in research, tasks often involve a high volume of research assignments within a short assessment period. The successful completion of such tasks elicits positive outcomes, stimulating teachers' drive for exploration and their pursuit of achievement (Demerouti and Bakker [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]; Montani, Courcy, and Vandenberghe [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>]; Tadić, Bakker, and Oerlemans [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref62">74</reflink>]). This further propels their investment in research and enhances research performance (Tymon and Batistic [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref63">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conversely, hindrance stressors pose significant threats to a faculty member's academic career progression. They drain their energy and fail to yield the desired results despite strenuous efforts (Colacion‐Quiros and Gemora [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref64">19</reflink>]; Pautz and Vogel [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref65">61</reflink>]; Wood and Michaelides [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref66">84</reflink>]). For instance, inadequate academic resources can significantly hamper a faculty member's research process. Repeated unsuccessful attempts can lead to dissatisfaction, motivation reduction, loss of confidence, and even complaints. Therefore, hindrance stressors in research can deter faculty's motivation to achieve, consequently impeding academic performance (Habib, Tufail, and Manzoor [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other studies further illustrate that challenge stressors enhance work dynamics, characterized by high energy and perseverance, whereas hindrance stressors diminish these dynamics (Breevaart and Bakker [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]; LePine et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref69">48</reflink>]). It has also been shown that challenge stressors encourage faculty to address difficulties proactively and positively, thereby increasing achievement motivation. In contrast, hindrance stressors tend to induce negative states of work, consequently decreasing achievement motivation (Chiara et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-10">The Moderating Role of Self‐Efficacy</hd> <p>Within the context of this study centered around faculty's academic work, we delineate academic self‐efficacy (ASE) as an individual's confidence in their capability to accomplish academic tasks (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]). A subset of teacher self‐efficacy, ASE underscores faculty research competencies and is particularly applicable to the university faculty population. Several studies suggest that academic self‐efficacy plays a significant role in achieving academic success (Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref72">89</reflink>]). Furthermore, F. Zhou ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref73">95</reflink>]) identified a tripartite structure of academic self‐efficacy, encompassing project, research, and presentation self‐efficacy. Empirical analysis of this three‐dimensional structure demonstrated that academic self‐efficacy profoundly influences the innovation performance of research teams, mediated through job satisfaction, job stress, and collaboration. J. Y. Zhang, Liao, and Zhao ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref74">92</reflink>]) argued that academic self‐efficacy encapsulates an individual's confidence in their scholarly abilities, positively influencing academic outcomes and inversely correlating with academic misconduct.</p> <p>Bandura ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>]) proposed that self‐efficacy can help alleviate the adverse effects of work‐related stress, impacting people's thoughts, motivation, and behavior to varying degrees. Recent advancements in work stress models highlight the psychological adjustment mechanisms, especially the role of self‐efficacy. For instance, Siu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref76">71</reflink>]) analyzed the occupational stress of Chinese managers, emphasizing the vital role of self‐efficacy in lessening the negative impacts induced by stress when individuals harbor a more positive self‐perception. In the domain of management and organizational behavior, scholars have primarily focused on job performance when exploring the predictive effects of self‐efficacy. Stajkovic and Luthans ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref77">72</reflink>]) indicated that domain‐specific self‐efficacy strongly correlates with job performance and is one of its most reliable predictors.</p> <p>Current literature corroborates the notion that self‐efficacy regulates the relationship between job stress and job performance variables. X. Zhou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref78">97</reflink>]) proposed that high self‐efficacy individuals willingly undertake challenging work, set ambitious goals, and diligently work toward their achievement. Simultaneously, these individuals efficiently mitigate non‐work factors' interference and decrease work stress, thereby achieving superior work performance. In addition, Liu and Li's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref79">50</reflink>]) review highlighted the moderating effect of self‐efficacy on work stress and its interaction effects on performance, attitudes, and coping styles, emphasizing the pivotal role of self‐efficacy in influencing individual motivation and behavior. To sum up, academic self‐efficacy is a domain‐specific self‐efficacy for university faculty research work. Based on the aforementioned analyses, it also acts as a moderator between stressors and related outcome variables (Çelik, Yeloğlu, and Yıldırım [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]; Ishaq and Mahmood [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref81">38</reflink>]; Zee and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref82">90</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-11">Research Objective</hd> <p>Research has assessed the relationship between faculty stressors and academic performance. However, there exists a significant gap in understanding the intersection of stressors, achievement motivation, self‐efficacy, and academic performance, particularly within Chinese university faculty. This study strives to fill this lacuna, creating a theoretical model drawing from existing literature (Figures 1 and 2). Our hypotheses suggest that stressors have a direct influence on faculty's academic performance but also indirectly shape it through achievement motivation (a mediating factor) and self‐efficacy (a moderating factor).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01apr25/pits23388-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23388-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 SEM for the relations between challenge stress, achievement motivation, academic performance, and self‐efficacy." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01apr25/pits23388-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23388-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 SEM for the relations between hindrance stress, achievement motivation, academic performance, and self‐efficacy." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The hypotheses of this study are as follows:</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-14">H1.</hd> <p>Challenge stressors have a positive effect on academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-15">H2.</hd> <p>Hindrance stressors have a negative effect on academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-16">H3.</hd> <p>Challenge stressors have a positive effect on academic performance through the mediating role of achievement motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-17">H4.</hd> <p>Hindrance stressors have a negative effect on academic performance mediated by achievement motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-18">H5.</hd> <p>Self‐efficacy positively moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-19">H6.</hd> <p>Self‐efficacy positively moderates the relationship between hindrance stressors and academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-20">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183755642-21">Design and Sample Population</hd> <p>This study employed a quantitative survey design involving teachers from public universities in Sichuan Province, China. The convenience sampling method was used, and a total of 7000 public university teachers were selected. This sampling method is beneficial for quickly gathering a large amount of data from a specific group without requiring significant time or resources (Thompson [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref83">75</reflink>]). The average teaching experience of the participants was 13 years (min = 1, max = 40). The gender distribution was fairly balanced with 45% male and 55% female participants. The teaching experience of the faculty varies from 1 to 2 years to 10 years or more, and their ages range from 26 years old to 60 years old or older. In terms of disciplines, 40.6% belonged to science, 51.5% to engineering, and 7.9% to other subjects. Regarding the institutional spread, 44.8% were from 985 project universities, 21.9% from 211 project universities, and 33.3% from other universities. This survey was conducted in March 2023 as part of the university teacher training program initiated by the Education Department of Sichuan Province.</p> <p>Data collection was executed through an anonymous online questionnaire to allow participants the freedom to respond at their convenience. First, teachers provided informed consent to participate in our study, which means they voluntarily agreed to be part of the research. Second, all participants received clear information about the research objectives, and standard instructions were provided to ensure consistency. Finally, all steps of data processing ensured anonymity. Exclusion criteria for participation in the study included refusal to provide informed consent, unwillingness to continue participation, multiple responses from the same participant, and incomplete questionnaires. Out of 7380 questionnaires, 7000 were collected, resulting in a response rate of 94.9%.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-22">Measures and Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183755642-23">Stressors Scale</hd> <p>This study conceptualizes challenge stressors' as those that stimulate faculty to undertake research, furnish a sense of accomplishment, and positively contribute to their academic careers. These encompass high‐target research assessments, research responsibilities, and difficulties in generating high‐level research results. Conversely, hindrance stressors' are those that may obstruct a faculty member's research drive. These stressors, if not adequately managed, can hamper academic career progression. They encompass factors such as unfair research assessment, unclear task allocation, resource constraints, and protracted paper review cycles. To gauge these two types of stressors, we used the research stressor scale conceptualized by Cavanaugh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref84">15</reflink>]) and P. G. Zhang and Liao ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref85">93</reflink>]). The stressor scale was designed to include two dimensions: challenge and hindrance, with eight questions measuring the challenge and seven questions measuring the hindrance. For instance, the challenge stress items are "My College has set high research assessment goals," and "I have a lot of research to do." At the same time, hindrance stress items are "I don't know how to be a good academic," and "it is difficult for me to find partners with similar interests in research." The seven‐point Likert scale was used for scoring, with higher scores indicating stronger research stressors faced by university faculty. The reliability of the challenge and hindrance stress scales were affirmed with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.85 and 0.81, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-24">Academic Performance Scale</hd> <p>It was gauged by a behavior‐oriented evaluation strategy. This approach extends beyond the focus on academic outcomes alone and considers the effort and commitment faculty members have invested in their research work. The academic performance scale used a one‐dimensional scale designed by Wang ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref86">81</reflink>]), comprising nine items. The sample items are "I regularly attend academic conferences," and "I am always active in applying for and participating in research projects." The Cronbach's alpha of academic performance scale for this study was 0.76, and its reliability is good. The seven‐point Likert scale was used for scoring, with higher scores indicating higher levels of academic performance of university faculty. This scale demonstrated good reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.76.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-25">Achievement Motivation Scale (AMS)</hd> <p>To measure the achievement motivation of the faculty, we adopted The AMS, devised by Norwegian researchers Gjesme and Nygard ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref87">29</reflink>]). The scale was designed to measure faculty motivation to achieve success (Ye and Hagtvet [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref88">88</reflink>]). On the base of ensuring the integrity of the original scale, questions with high factor loadings in previous studies were selected to form six questions to measure the achievement motivation of university faculty. Among the sample items were "I like to persevere in solving problems that I am not sure I can handle," and "I am attracted to difficult tasks." A seven‐point Likert scale was used for rating, where higher scores indicate higher academic motivation among university faculty. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this achievement on the motivation scale was 0.78, indicating satisfactory reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-26">Self‐Efficacy Scale</hd> <p>The study leveraged the single‐dimensional scale developed by J. Y. Zhang, Liao, and Zhao ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref89">92</reflink>]) to measure teacher self‐efficacy, consisting of three items. This scale aligns with recommendations made by Bandura et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]) concerning item construction and has been extensively used in self‐efficacy research. One of the items, for instance, states: "I am confident that I can do academic work." The self‐efficacy scale scored a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.72, indicative of acceptable reliability. Scoring was done on a seven‐point Likert scale, with higher scores reflecting higher self‐efficacy among university faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-27">Statistical Analysis</hd> <p>The data analytics framework for this study comprises Python's factor_analyzer and <emph>semopy</emph> libraries (Meshcheryakov, Igolkina, and Samsonova [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref91">55</reflink>]), along with IBM SPSS 26 for exhaustive statistical analysis. In the initial stage, this study conducted descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis on all variables using SPSS 26.0 software. The structural equation model (SEM) was subsequently constructed using the Python's factor_analyzer and <emph>semopy</emph> library, and the maximum likelihood estimation method was employed to estimate model parameters. To evaluate the adequacy of the model, we consider several fit indices such as χ<sups>2</sups>/df, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, and TLI. In concurrence with existing research, our model is deemed acceptable given χ<sups>2</sups>/df ≤ 5, RMSEA and SRMR &lt; 0.08, and CFI and TLI &gt; 0.9, indicating that the model is acceptable. If RMSEA &lt; 0.05 and CFI and TLI &gt; 0.95, the model is a good fit (Hu and Bentler [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>]). In the third step, this study employed the bootstrap method to test the mediating effects (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref93">34</reflink>]). In the fourth step, we used regression analysis to test for the presence of moderation effects. Finally, we used structural equation modeling to test our research hypotheses. In addition, this study employed large‐scale data analysis involving 7000 valid data points. In such cases, using the Python3‐based factor_analyzer and <emph>semopy</emph> libraries would offer advantages in terms of computational speed and data processing capabilities.</p> <p>Based on the aforementioned data analysis results, this study included evaluation of descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, analysis of variance, measurement model assessment (i.e., assessing the reliability and validity of latent constructs), and structural model assessment (i.e., examining the hypothesized relationships among latent constructs).</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-28">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183755642-29">Descriptive and Correlations</hd> <p>In Table 1, we provided the mean, standard deviation, and maximum and minimum values for each variable. In addition, Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations for all variables. It is worth noting that most of the correlations are statistically significant. The result (Table 2) indicated that challenge stressors were positively associated with faculty academic performance (<emph>r</emph> = 0.032, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01). However, only hindrance stressors were found to be negatively associated with faculty academic performance (<emph>r</emph> = −0.12, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01). Challenge stressors were positively associated with self‐efficacy and achievement motivation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.13, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01; <emph>r</emph> = 0.53, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01), while hindrance stressors were found to be negatively associated with achievement motivation and self‐efficacy (<emph>r</emph> = −0.02, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01; <emph>r</emph> = −0.12, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01). Furthermore, achievement motivation was positively associated with self‐efficacy (<emph>r</emph> = 0.014, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01). Finally, achievement motivation and self‐efficacy were positively associated with academic performance (<emph>r</emph> = 0.15, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01; <emph>r</emph> = 0.36, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01).</p> <p>1 Table Descriptive analysis (N = 7000).</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Variables&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Mean&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Challenge stressors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.92&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hindrance stressors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.77&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Achievement motivation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Self&amp;#8208;efficacy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Table Correlations of the variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Variable&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;(1)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;(2)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;(3)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;(4)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;(5)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1. Challenge stressors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2. Hindrance stressors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3. Achievement motivation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.53&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.02&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4. Self&amp;#8208;efficacy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.13&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.12&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.014&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5. Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.032&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.12&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.15&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.36&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) = Challenge stressors; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>) = Hindrance stressors; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) = Achievement motivation; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>) = Self‐efficacy; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>) = Academic performance.</p> <ulist> <item>2 * <emph>p</emph>&lt;0.05,</item> <item>3 ** <emph>p</emph>&lt;0.01,</item> <item>4 *** <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>The results of the bivariate correlation analysis are shown in Table 2, and it can be seen that: except for the small value of <emph>r</emph>, but significant at the 0.01 level (a similar situation often occurs for this indicator value when the sample size is large), all other indicator values fit the criteria, which indicates that the bivariate is significantly correlated.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-30">SEM</hd> <p>In this study, we utilized an SEM to scrutinize 7000 valid questionnaires collected from university faculty in Chengdu, Sichuan Province. The intent was to quantify academic performance in environments characterized by stressors. To investigate the legitimacy of the theoretical model's pertinent hypotheses, we implemented the <emph>semopy</emph> library to establish the SEM (represented in Figures 1 and 2) and adopted the maximum likelihood method for estimating model parameters. The model comprised eight items on Challenge Stressors, seven on Hindrance Stressors, nine on the Academic Performance Scale, six on the AMS, and three on the Academic Self‐Efficacy Scale, totaling 33 items. All measurement items displayed standardized factor loadings above 0.7 and achieved statistical significance (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05), indicating their ability to accurately reflect the observed variables and serve as valid observation indicators. The model exhibited a satisfactory fit to the data, as indicated by the fit indices (χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 18.346, CFI = 0.907, GFI = 0.906, AGFI = 0.918, NFI = 0.910, TLI = 0.916, RMSEA = 0.038).</p> <p>Despite the higher χ<sups>2</sups>/df ratio, a common occurrence with larger sample sizes, all other fitting indicator values meet the stipulated criteria, thus confirming the SEM's strong fitting performance.</p> <p>Our analysis, demonstrated in Table 3, reveals that challenge stressors exhibit positive effects on academic performance (<emph>β</emph> = 0.461, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Conversely, hindrance stressors negatively impact academic performance (<emph>β</emph> = −0.115, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01), affirming Hypothesis 2.</p> <p>3 Table Hypothesis and standardized estimates for the direct and indirect effects.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Hypothesis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Path&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;&amp;#946;&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Remarks&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;H1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Challenge stressors &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.461&lt;ext-link href="***" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;74.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;H2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hindrance stressors &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.115&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;11.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;H3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Challenge stressors &amp;#8594;Achievement motivation &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.2&lt;ext-link href="***" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.413&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;H4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hindrance stressors &amp;#8594;Achievement motivation &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.04&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;7.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Path&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Indirect effect&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Direct effect&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Total effect&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Remarks&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Challenge stressors &amp;#8594;Achievement motivation &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Challenge stressors &amp;#8594; Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.461&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SUM of direct and indirect effects&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.661&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;VAF (indirect/total effects)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.303&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hindrance stressors &amp;#8594;Achievement motivation &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hindrance stressors &amp;#8594; Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.115&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SUM of direct and indirect effects&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.155&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;VAF (indirect/total effects)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.258&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05,</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01,</item> <item>7 *** <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183755642-31">Mediating Effects</hd> <p>Hayes ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref99">34</reflink>]) posits that bootstrapping's advantage lies in its reliance solely on indirect effects estimations, sidestepping assumptions of normal sample distribution. Notably, the significant indirect effect of achievement motivation on academic performance via challenge/hindrance stressors (<emph>β</emph> = 0.2, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001; <emph>β</emph> = −0.04, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01) confirms Hypotheses 3 and 4.</p> <p>Variance accounted for (VAF) was used to estimate the strength of the mediating effect. It is calculated as the indirect effect divided by the sum of the direct effect and indirect effect (i.e., total effect), with values of 0.303 and 0.258. This indicates that 30.3% of the impact of challenge stressors on academic performance is explained through achievement motivation. In addition, 25.8% of the effect of hindrance stressors on academic performance is explained through achievement motivation. Because the VAF values fall between 20% and 80%, this mediation is classified as partial mediation and achievement motivation can be considered as a complementary mediator.</p> <p>As depicted in Table 3, it is notable that a minority of beta (<emph>β</emph>) values or t values, although minor, display significant associations at the 0.001 or 0.01 level. This kind of occurrence is not uncommon when dealing with large sample sizes, where certain indicators may yield statistically significant results despite relatively small magnitudes. Apart from these exceptions, all other measured indicators align satisfactorily with the established criteria. These observations substantiate the existence of both direct and indirect effects within our model.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-32">Moderating Effects</hd> <p>Before discerning any moderating effects, our model established direct and indirect effects. By conducting regression analysis, we examined how faculty self‐efficacy moderates the impact of challenging/hindrance stressors on academic performance. As suggested by Champoux and Peters ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref100">17</reflink>]), the procedure is widely accepted and statistically straightforward. The mediator and moderator were centered and interacted, resulting in an interaction term and resolving the issue of nonessential multicollinearity (Fairchild and McQuillin [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref101">23</reflink>]). Results displayed in Table 4 indicate the interaction terms (self‐efficacy × challenge stressors; self‐efficacy × hindrance stressors) had a statistically significant, positive effect on academic performance (<emph>β</emph> = 0.03, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01; <emph>β</emph> = 0.01, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01), substantiating Hypotheses 5 and 6. Furthermore, Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a positive correlation between self‐efficacy and challenge stressors, while showing a negative correlation between self‐efficacy and hindrance stressors. The current study also conducted a simple slope analysis to examine the effects of challenge‐hindrance stressors on academic performance at low and high levels of self‐efficacy. The results (see Figures 3 and 4) indicate that under the moderation of high and low self‐efficacy groups, challenge stressors are significantly positively correlated with academic performance (slope = 2.20, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01; slope = 1.73, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01), while hindrance stressors are significantly negatively correlated with academic performance (slope = −1.40, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01; slope = −1.70, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01). It can be observed that under the moderation of high self‐efficacy, the positive correlation between challenge stressors and academic performance is relatively strong. Conversely, under the moderation of low self‐efficacy, the negative correlation between hindrance stressors and academic performance is stronger.</p> <p>4 Table Estimates for the moderation effect of the self‐efficacy.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Hypothesis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Path&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;&amp;#946;&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Remarks&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;H5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Self&amp;#8208;efficacy &amp;#215; Challenge stressors &amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.03&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.110&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;H6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Self&amp;#8208;efficacy &amp;#215; Hindrance stressors&amp;#8594;Academic performance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.01&lt;ext-link href="**" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.553&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Supported&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 * <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05,</item> <item>9 ** <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01,</item> <item>10 *** <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01apr25/pits23388-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23388-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Self‐efficacy as a moderator in the relationship between challenge stress and academic performance." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01apr25/pits23388-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23388-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Self‐efficacy as a moderator in the relationship between hindrance stress and academic performance." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As evident from Table 4, all <emph>p</emph> values fall within the bounds of statistical significance, except for a select few beta (<emph>β</emph>) values or <emph>t</emph> values which, though small, are nonetheless significant at a 0.01 level. This phenomenon is frequently observed with certain indicators, particularly when dealing with expansive sample sizes. The data presented aligns with the theoretical expectation, thus supporting the existence of a moderating effect in the studied model.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-35">Discussion</hd> <p>This research aimed to investigate the relationships among stressors (i.e., challenge and hindrance pressures), achievement motivation, and academic performance within Chinese university faculty. More specifically, the mediating role of achievement motivation and the moderating role of self‐efficacy in the relationship between stressors and academic performance were examined. The analysis employed questionnaires and structural equation modeling to test Hypotheses H1–H6. Our findings confirm that challenge stressors positively correlate with academic performance, while hindrance stressors negatively correlate (H1–H2). This is consistent with previous studies (Asaloei, Wolomasi, and Werang [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref102">7</reflink>]; Boswell, Olson‐Buchanan, and LePine [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref103">12</reflink>]; Podsakoff, Lepine, and Lepine [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref104">62</reflink>]; Travis et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref105">76</reflink>]; Trigueros et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref106">77</reflink>]). This demonstrates the differential effects of the two types of stressors on academic performance: challenge stressors are facilitative, whereas hindrance stressors are obstructive. These findings provide additional evidence to LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref107">47</reflink>]), suggesting the importance of categorizing stressors to enable effective management.</p> <p>Hypotheses H3–H4 posit a significant relationship between university faculty members' stressors and achievement motivation. Our results show that challenge stressors positively influence achievement motivation while hindrance stressors exert a negative influence (Travis et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref108">76</reflink>]; Y. Yang and Li [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref109">87</reflink>]). The mediating role of achievement motivation between stressors and academic performance is differential, with challenge stressors contributing to improved performance through achievement motivation, and the opposite observed for hindrance stressors. This is a sufficient indication that the challenging task is a key factor to motivate achievement. Thus, this suggests universities should design challenging research goals and tasks to stimulate achievement motivation. The research result also expands upon previous similar research findings (e.g., Wang et al. 2014; Hong, Bernacki, and Perera [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref110">35</reflink>]). At the same time, our study reveals a positive effect of achievement motivation on academic performance, echoing the findings of previous studies (Dogan [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref111">22</reflink>]; Kori et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref112">43</reflink>]; Bailey and Phillips [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref113">8</reflink>]; Fereidooni‐moghadam [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref114">25</reflink>]). Given the strong link between motivation and performance, universities should aim to foster a conducive research environment that boosts faculty members' achievement motivation levels. Achievement motivation mediates the relationship between university faculty stressors and academic performance. Our study corroborates this claim, highlighting how achievement motivation can mediate the impact of both challenge and hindrance stressors on performance. As LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref115">47</reflink>]) noted, stress can affect performance through emotional strain and work motivation. This study further underscores the importance of fostering achievement motivation to mitigate the impact of stressors on performance.</p> <p>In line with Hypotheses H5 and H6, our study demonstrates the moderating role of self‐efficacy in the relationship between university faculty stressors and academic performance. More specifically, self‐efficacy positively moderates the relationship between challenge stress and academic performance (Firth et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref116">27</reflink>]) and reduces the negative impact of hindrance stress on academic performance (Stiglbauer and Zuber [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref117">73</reflink>]). These results are consistent with previous findings (De Feyter et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref118">26</reflink>]; Hong, Bernacki, and Perera [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref119">35</reflink>]; Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref120">89</reflink>]) and extend research into the moderating role of self‐efficacy in academic settings, as well as contribute to a deeper analysis of the power relationship between stressors and academic performance in research.</p> <p>However, this study is not without limitations. First, the reliance on self‐reported data may introduce some bias. Although we attempted to mitigate this by applying structural equation modeling (Bowen and Guo [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref121">13</reflink>]), the reliability of our measurements could still be underestimated. Second, due to the lack of randomization and longitudinal design, self‐selection bias may have been introduced. To maintain external validity, we drew faculty from different universities. Third, convenience sampling may not provide a representative sample of the entire population, which limits the generalizability of the study's findings. Future research could consider using random sampling or other methods to enhance the representativeness of the sample. Fourth, understanding the moderating effects of demographic factors like age, gender, teaching experience, and education level could provide a more nuanced perspective. Hence, future studies might consider the effects of demographic variables or employ longitudinal designs or randomized interventions to address these limitations. In addition, considering the pathway in which self‐efficacy moderates the impact of stressors on performance through motivations as a direction for further in‐depth investigation within this study.</p> <p>To sum up, universities should cultivate faculty achievement motivation and research self‐efficacy to alleviate research stress and strive to create a rich academic atmosphere. Moreover, the findings of this study offer significant practical implications. Professional development programs and educational policies need to emphasize fair and scientifically robust research assessment standards, thereby supporting the sustainable advancement of higher education in China.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-36">Conclusion</hd> <p>This research discovered significant relationships between academic performance and stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) experienced by university faculty members. Notably, achievement motivation was found to play a pivotal mediating role in these relationships, with faculty self‐efficacy serving as a positive moderator. Specifically, challenge stressors demonstrated a significant positive impact on academic performance, while hindrance stressors exhibited a pronounced negative effect. These effects were mediated by achievement motivation and influenced by research anxiety. Despite challenge stressors being generally considered beneficial, they can have negative effects, emphasizing the complexity of their impact on academic performance. Hindrance stressors, regarded as detrimental, exert negative effects on performance via achievement motivation and research anxiety. Thus, universities should strategically employ challenge stressors while mitigating hindrance stressors. Furthermore, faculty self‐efficacy was found to positively moderate the relationship between both types of stressors and academic performance, the beneficial effect of challenge stressors, and reduce the negative impact of hindrance stressors. Despite this study shedding light on the distinct effects of challenge‐hindrance stressors on academic performance, unveiling their underlying mechanisms, and revealing the mediating role of achievement motivation and the moderating role of self‐efficacy, further research is necessary. Future studies should aim to extend the breadth and depth of this field by exploring additional valuable mediating and moderating variables, and by delving deeper into the dichotomous nature of challenge stressors within the context of university faculty work.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-37">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-38">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>CDNU [2023 (03)].</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-39">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183755642-40">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data supporting the results of this study are available from the authors. These data cannot be made public because they contain information that may compromise the privacy of the study participants.</p> <ref id="AN0183755642-41"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abbas, M., and U. Raja. 2019. " Challenge‐Hindrance Stressors and Job Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Conscientiousness." Journal of Business and Psychology 34 : 189 – 201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9535-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Agyapong, B., G. Obuobi‐Donkor, L. Burback, and Y. Wei. 2022. " Stress, Burnout, Anxiety and Depression Among Teachers: A Scoping Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 17 : 10706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710706.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Almossa, S. Y. 2021. " University Students' Perspectives Toward Learning and Assessment During COVID‐19." Education and Information Technologies 26, no. 6 : 7163 – 7181. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-021-10554-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alonderiene, R., and M. Majauskaite. 2016. " Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction in Higher Education Institutions." International Journal of Educational Management 30, no. 1 : 140 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2014-0106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Al‐Zoubi, S. M., and M. A. B. Younes. 2015. " Low Academic Achievement: Causes and Results." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5, no. 11 : 2262. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0511.09.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref47" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, C., J. A. D. Hildreth, and L. Howland. 2015. " Is the Desire for Status a Fundamental Human Motive? A Review of the Empirical Literature." Psychological Bulletin 141, no. 3 : 574 – 601. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0038781.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref102" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Asaloei, S. I., A. K. Wolomasi, and B. R. Werang. 2020. " Work‐Related Stress and Performance Among Primary School Teachers." International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 9, no. 2 : 352 – 358. https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V9I2.20335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref113" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, T., and L. Phillips. 2015. " The Influence of Motivation and Adaptation on Students' Subjective Well‐Being, Meaning in Life and Academic Performance." Higher Education Research &amp; Development 35, no. 2 : 201 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087474.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref71" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1997. Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. London, UK : W. H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bandura, A., C. Barbaranelli, G. V. Caprara, and C. Pastorelli. 1996. " Multifaceted Impact of Self‐Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning." Child Development 67, no. 3 : 1206 – 1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8624.1996.TB01791.X.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernardin, H. J., and R. W. Beatty. 1984. Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work. USA, Bangladesh : Kent Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boswell, W. R., J. B. Olson‐Buchanan, and M. A. LePine. 2004. " Relations Between Stress and Work Outcomes: The Role of Felt Challenge, Job Control, and Psychological Strain." Journal of Vocational Behavior 64, no. 1 : 165 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowen, N. K., and S. Guo. 2011. Structural Equation Modeling. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breevaart, K., and A. B. Bakker. 2018. " Daily Job Demands and Employee Work Engagement: The Role of Daily Transformational Leadership Behavior." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 23, no. 3 : 338 – 349. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000082.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cavanaugh, M. A., W. R. Boswell, M. V. Roehling, and J. W. Boudreau. 2000. " An Empirical Examination of Self‐Reported Work Stress Among U.S. Managers." Journal of Applied Psychology 85, no. 1 : 65 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Çelik, D. A., H. O. Yeloğlu, and O. B. Yıldırım. 2016. " The Moderating Role of Self Efficacy on the Perceptions of Justice and Turnover Intentions." Procedia ‐ Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 : 392 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2016.11.049.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Champoux, J. E., and W. S. Peters. 1987. " Form, Effect Size and Power in Moderated Regression Analysis." Journal of Occupational Psychology 60, no. 3 : 243 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8325.1987.TB00257.X.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiara, P., C. Luca, P. Annalisa, and R. Chiara. 2019. " Emotional Exhaustion Among Healthcare Professionals: The Effects of Role Ambiguity, Work Engagement and Professional Commitment." Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis 90, no. 6 : 60 – 67. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i6-S.8481.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colacion‐Quiros, H., and R. B. Gemora. 2016. " Causes and Effects of Stress Among Faculty Members in a State University." Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 4, no. 1 : 18 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Covington, M. V. 2000. " Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An Integrative Review." Annual Review of Psychology 51 : 171 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.PSYCH.51.1.171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demerouti, E., and A. B. Bakker. 2011. " The Job Demands‐Resources Model: Challenges for Future Research." SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37, no. 2 : 01 – 09.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dogan, U. 2015. " Student Engagement, Academic Self‐Efficacy, and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance." Anthropologist 20, no. 3 : 553 – 561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891759.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fairchild, A. J., and S. D. McQuillin. 2010. " Evaluating Mediation and Moderation Effects in School Psychology: A Presentation of Methods and Review of Current Practice." Journal of School Psychology 48, no. 1 : 53 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSP.2009.09.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fang, C. Y. 2013. " The Effects of Job Stress and Social Support on College Faculty Performance." Research Management 34, no. 5 : 136 – 143.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fereidooni‐moghadam M., et al. 2017. " Relationship Between Achievement Motivation and Academic Performance in Nursing and Midwifery Students at Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in 2014‐2015." Journal of Research Center for Medical Education Development 8, no. 3 : 335 – 344. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://journals.ajums.ac.ir/article%5f79874.html">http://journals.ajums.ac.ir/article%5f79874.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Feyter, T., R. Caers, C. Vigna, and D. Berings. 2012. " Unraveling the Impact of the Big Five Personality Traits on Academic Performance: The Moderating and Mediating Effects of Self‐Efficacy and Academic Motivation." Learning and Individual Differences 22, no. 4 : 439 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2012.03.013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firth, A. M., I. Cavallini, S. Sütterlin, and R. G. Lugo. 2019. " Mindfulness and Self‐Efficacy in Pain Perception, Stress and Academic Performance. The Influence of Mindfulness on Cognitive Processes." Psychology Research and Behavior Management 12 : 565 – 574. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S206666.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao, J., and C. Li. 2022. " Version 2.0 of Building World‐Class Universities in China: Initial Outcomes and Problems of the Double World‐Class Project." Higher Education Policy 35, no. 2 : 397 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41307-020-00211-Z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gjesme, T., and R. Nygard. 1970. Achievement‐Related Motives: Theoretical Considerations and Construction of a Measuring Instrument (unpublished report, University of Oslo).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groening, C., and C. Binnewies. 2019. " Achievement Unlocked!—The Impact of Digital Achievements as a Gamification Element on Motivation and Performance." Computers in Human Behavior 97 : 151 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2019.02.026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, B., B. Qiang, J. Zhou, et al. 2021. " The Relationship Between Achievement Motivation and Job Performance Among Chinese Physicians: A Conditional Process Analysis." BioMed Research International 2021 : 6646980. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6646980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Habib, M. N., M. Tufail, and H. Manzoor. 2021. " Challenge Stressors and Faculty Job Performance: The Role of Career Success Satisfaction During Covid‐19." International Journal of Business and Management Sciences 2, no. 3 : 92 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, J., H. Yin, J. Wang, and J. Zhang. 2020. " Job Demands and Resources as Antecedents of University Teachers' Exhaustion, Engagement and Job Satisfaction." Educational Psychology 40, no. 3 : 318 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1674249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2009. " Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium." Communication Monographs 76, no. 4 : 408 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong, W., M. L. Bernacki, and H. N. Perera. 2020. " A Latent Profile Analysis of Undergraduates' Achievement Motivations and Metacognitive Behaviors, and Their Relations to Achievement in Science." Journal of Educational Psychology 112, no. 7 : 1409 – 1430. https://doi.org/10.1037/EDU0000445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. " Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1 : 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, Y., S. K. Pang, and S. Yu. 2018. " Academic Identities and University Faculty Responses to New Managerialist Reforms: Experiences From China." Studies in Higher Education 43, no. 1 : 154 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1157860.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ishaq, R., and A. Mahmood. 2017. " Relationship Between Job Stress and Employee Burnout—The Moderating Role of Self‐Efficacy for University Teachers." Journal of Research &amp; Reflections in Education 11, no. 2 : 100 – 112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, W. B. 2015. On Being a Mentor: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty. London, UK : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanfer, R., M. Frese, and R. E. Johnson. 2017. " Motivation Related to Work: A Century of Progress." Journal of Applied Psychology 102, no. 3 : 338 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, F., Y. Zhang, and H. Zhang. 2022. " Hindrance Stressors, Ego Depletion and Knowledge Sharing." Organization Management Journal 19, no. 1 : 22 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-06-2020-0964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karatepe, O. M., U. Yavas, E. Babakus, and G. D. Deitz. 2018. " The Effects of Organizational and Personal Resources on Stress, Engagement, and Job Outcomes." International Journal of Hospitality Management 74 : 147 – 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kori, K., M. Pedaste, Ä. Leijen, and E. Tõnisson. 2016. " The Role of Programming Experience in ICT Students' Learning Motivation and Academic Achievement." International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6, no. 5 : 331 – 337. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, W. W. F. 2017. " Effects of Social Media Usage and Social Media Multitasking on the Academic Performance of University Students." Computers in Human Behavior 68 : 286 – 291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2016.11.043.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lennard, A. C., F. K. Matta, S. H. Lin, J. Koopman, and R. E. Johnson. 2022. " The Dynamism of Daily Justice: A Person‐Environment Fit Perspective on the Situated Value of Justice." Organization Science 33, no. 4 : 1523 – 1553. https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.2021.1496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lepine, J. A., M. A. Lepine, and C. L. Jackson. 2004. " Challenge and Hindrance Stress: Relationships With Exhaustion, Motivation to Learn, and Learning Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 5 : 883 – 891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LePine, J. A., N. P. Podsakoff, and M. A. LePine. 2005. " A Meta‐Analytic Test of the Challenge Stressor‐Hindrance Stressor Framework: An Explanation for Inconsistent Relationships Among Stressors and Performance." Academy of Management Journal 48, no. 5 : 764 – 775. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LePine, M. A., Y. Zhang, E. R. Crawford, and B. L. Rich. 2016. " Turning Their Pain to Gain: Charismatic Leader Influence on Follower Stress Appraisal and Job Performance." Academy of Management Journal 59, no. 3 : 1036 – 1059. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2013.0778.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, C., J. Xian, B. Li, and H. Huang. 2020. " Transformational Leadership and Employees' Thriving at Work: The Mediating Roles of Challenge‐Hindrance Stressors." Frontiers in Psychology 11 : 1400. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.01400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, C., and H. Li. 2018. " Stressors and Stressor Appraisals: The Moderating Effect of Task Efficacy." Journal of Business and Psychology 33 : 141 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9483-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, Q. C. 2006. " The 21st Century Flu: The Happiness Killer." People's Forum 6 : 16 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, J., Y. Peng, and B. Wu. 2021. " Challenging or Hindering? The Roles of Goal Orientation and Cognitive Appraisal in Stressor‐Performance Relationships." Journal of Organizational Behavior 42, no. 3 : 388 – 406. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2503.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahfouz, J. 2020. " Principals and Stress: Few Coping Strategies for Abundant Stressors." Educational Management Administration &amp; Leadership 48, no. 3 : 440 – 458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218817562.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClelland, D. C., J. W. Atkinson, R. A. Clark, and E. L. Lowell. 2006. " Toward a Theory of Motivation." In The Achievement Motive, edited by D. C. McClelland, J. W. Atkinson, R. A. Clark, and E. L. Lowell, 6 – 96. Norwalk, Conn., US : Appleton‐Century‐Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11144-002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meshcheryakov, G., A. A. Igolkina, and M. G. Samsonova. 2021. " semopy 2: A Structural Equation Modeling Package With Random Effects in Python." arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.01140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, T. 2016. Higher Education Outcomes‐Based Funding Models and Academic Quality. Lumina Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED587409.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moin, M. F., P. Spagnoli, A. N. Khan, and Z. Hameed. 2022. " Challenge‐Hindrance Stressors and Service Employees Job Outcomes." Current Psychology 42, no. 28: 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-022-03531-Y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montani, F., F. Courcy, and C. Vandenberghe. 2017. " Innovating Under Stress: The Role of Commitment and Leader‐Member Exchange." Journal of Business Research 77 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, H. A. 1938. Explorations in Personality. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Oortmerssen, L. A., M. C. J. Caniëls, and M. F. van Assen. 2020. " Coping With Work Stressors and Paving the Way for Flow: Challenge and Hindrance Demands, Humor, and Cynicism." Journal of Happiness Studies 21, no. 6 : 2257 – 2277. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10902-019-00177-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pautz, M. C., and M. D. Vogel. 2020. " Investigating Faculty Motivation and Its Connection to Faculty Work‐Life Balance: Engaging Public Service Motivation to Explore Faculty Motivation." Journal of Public Affairs Education 26, no. 4 : 437 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1776076.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, N. P., J. A. Lepine, and M. A. Lepine. 2007. " Differential Challenge Stressor‐Hindrance Stressor Relationships With Job Attitudes, Turnover Intentions, Turnover, and Withdrawal Behavior: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 2 : 438 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prem, R., S. Ohly, B. Kubicek, and C. Korunka. 2017. " Thriving on Challenge Stressors? Exploring Time Pressure and Learning Demands as Antecedents of Thriving at Work." Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, no. 1 : 108 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.2115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rafi, M., K. Ahmad, S. B. Naeem, A. U. Khan, and Z. JianMing. 2020. " Knowledge‐Based Society and Emerging Disciplines: A Correlation of Academic Performance." Bottom Line 33, no. 4 : 337 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-12-2019-0130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodell, J. B., and T. A. Judge. 2009. " Can 'Good' Stressors Spark 'Bad' Behaviors? The Mediating Role of Emotions in Links of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors With Citizenship and Counterproductive Behaviors." Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 6 : 1438 – 1451. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0016752.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanyal, S., and M. W. Hisam. 2018. " The Impact of Teamwork on Work Performance of Employees: A Study of Faculty Members in Dhofar University." IOSR Journal of Business and Management 20, no. 3 : 15 – 22. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-2003011522.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saroyan, A. and Frenay, M., ed. 2023. Building Teaching Capacities in Higher Education: A Comprehensive International Model. Oxford, UK : Taylor &amp; Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schonert‐Reichl, K. A. 2017. " Social and Emotional Learning and Teachers." Future of Children 27, no. 1 : 137 – 155. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/44219025">http://www.jstor.org/stable/44219025</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shafait, Z., M. A. Khan, Y. Bilan, and J. Oláh. 2021. " Modeling the Mediating Roles of Self‐Directed Learning and Knowledge Management Processes Between Emotional Intelligence and Learning Outcomes in Higher Education." PLoS One 16 : e0255177. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0255177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Si, J. 2024. " Higher Education Teachers' Professional Well‐Being in the Rise of Managerialism: Insights From China." Higher Education 87, no. 4 : 1121 – 1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01056-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siu, O., P. E. Spector, C. L. Cooper, and C. Lu. 2005. " Work Stress, Self‐Efficacy, Chinese Work Values, and Work Well‐Being in Hong Kong and Beijing." International Journal of Stress Management 12, no. 3 : 274 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.3.274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stajkovic, A. D., and F. Luthans. 1998. " Self‐Efficacy and Work‐Related Performance: A Meta‐Analysis." Psychological Bulletin 124, no. 2 : 240 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stiglbauer, B., and J. Zuber. 2018. " Challenge and Hindrance Stress Among Schoolteachers." Psychology in the Schools 55, no. 6 : 707 – 721. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tadić, M., A. B. Bakker, and W. G. M. Oerlemans. 2015. " Challenge Versus Hindrance Job Demands and Well‐Being: A Diary Study on the Moderating Role of Job Resources." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 88, no. 4 : 702 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12094.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, S. K. 2012. Sampling (Vol. 755). John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Travis, J., A. Kaszycki, M. Geden, and J. Bunde. 2020. " Some Stress Is Good Stress: The Challenge‐Hindrance Framework, Academic Self‐Efficacy, and Academic Outcomes." Journal of Educational Psychology 112, no. 8 : 1632 – 1643. https://doi.org/10.1037/EDU0000478.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trigueros, R., A. Padilla, J. M. Aguilar‐Parra, I. Mercader, R. López‐Liria, and P. Rocamora. 2020. " The Influence of Transformational Teacher Leadership on Academic Motivation and Resilience, Burnout and Academic Performance." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 20 : 7687. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH17207687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turnbull, D., R. Chugh, and J. Luck. 2020. Learning Management Systems, an Overview. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies, edited by A. Tatnall, Cham, Germany : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_248.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tymon, A., and S. Batistic. 2016. " Improved Academic Performance and Enhanced Employability? The Potential Double Benefit of Proactivity for Business Graduates." Teaching in Higher Education 21, no. 8 : 915 – 932. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1198761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urbina‐Garcia, A. 2020. " What Do We Know About University Academics' Mental Health? A Systematic Literature Review." Stress and Health 36, no. 5 : 563 – 585. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2956.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, X. Y. 2014. "A Study on Influencing Mechanism of Challenge‐hindrance Academic Stressor on University Teachers' Academic Performance." Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D., University of Tianjing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watt, H. M. G., and P. W. Richardson. 2020. " Motivation of Higher Education Faculty: (How) It Matters." International Journal of Educational Research 100 : 101533. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2020.101533.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, J. R., T. A. Beehr, and N. D. Christiansen. 2010. " Toward a Better Understanding of the Effects of Hindrance and Challenge Stressors on Work Behavior." Journal of Vocational Behavior 76, no. 1 : 68 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVB.2009.06.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, S. J., and G. Michaelides. 2016. " Challenge and Hindrance Stressors and Wellbeing‐Based Work–Nonwork Interference: A Diary Study of Portfolio Workers." Human Relations 69, no. 1 : 111 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715580866.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, J., M. Gao, and B. H. Li. 2009. " Research and Reflection on the Performance Evaluation of Research Results in Universities." Supplement, Research Management 30, no. S1 : 100 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, R., X. You, Y. Zhang, L. Lian, and W. Feng. 2019. " Teachers' Mental Health Becoming Worse: The Case of China." International Journal of Educational Development 70 : 102077. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJEDUDEV.2019.102077.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, Y., and X. Li. 2021. " The Impact of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors on Thriving at Work Double Mediation Based on Affect and Motivation." Frontiers in Psychology 12 : 613871. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.613871.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye, R. M., and K. A. Hagtvet. 1992. " Measurement and Analysis of Achievement Motivation." Psychological Development and Education 3 : 14 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zajacova, A., S. M. Lynch, and T. J. Espenshade. 2005. " Self‐Efficacy, Stress, and Academic Success in College." Research in Higher Education 46, no. 6 : 677 – 706. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11162-004-4139-Z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee, M., and H. M. Y. Koomen. 2016. " Teacher Self‐Efficacy and Its Effects on Classroom Processes, Student Academic Adjustment, and Teacher Well‐Being: A Synthesis of 40 Years of Research." Review of Educational Research 86, no. 4 : 981 – 1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeng, X. J. 2010. A Study of Job Stress Among University Faculty (master's thesis, Dalian University of Science and Technology), CNKI. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=uGgCwAjnz5EXKJN0TMilo9dNVIoisGBpe-YVIiYidQ7Cu8XL9TRCj-siZObkzSmDy4WXiX6e3wo7_n6MdXUXO-MViEGTgvg9ow237EvLrjFBpyimHuwVIvdLqlIltzQxa-z7MAY48i-emD8UZ4Gt_A=_=&amp;uniplatform=NZKPT&amp;language=CHS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, J. Y., Q. J. Liao, and J. Zhao. 2013. " A Study on the Influence of Research Pressure on Academic Misconduct of Doctoral Students." Research Management 34, no. 4 : 99 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, P. G., and Q. J. Liao. 2012. " A Study on the Mechanism of the Effect of Scientific Research Pressure on Academic Misconduct in Universities: The Moderating Effect of Organizational Support and Academic Self‐Esteem." Scientific Research 30, no. 12 : 1781 – 1788.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., S. Zhang, and W. Hua. 2019. " The Impact of Psychological Capital and Occupational Stress on Teacher Burnout: Mediating Role of Coping Styles." The Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher 28 : 339 – 349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00446-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, F. 2009. A Study on the Role of Team Support and Research Self‐Efficacy on the Innovation Performance of University Research Teams (master's thesis, Zhejiang University of Technology), CNKI. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=3uoqIhG8C475KOm_zrgu4lQARvep2SAkhskYGsHyiXlyV6jw0YcPLHkQhU7qAmRj7Io3KcfBjMirY5nPpdGRf8VchZ98oVB-&amp;uniplatform=NZKPT.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, T., R. Law, and P. C. Lee. 2022. " 'What Motivates Me?' Motivation to Conduct Research of Academics in Teaching‐Oriented Universities in China." Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &amp; Tourism Education 31 : 100392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2022.100392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, X., S. F. Rasool, J. Yang, and M. Z. Asghar. 2021. " Exploring the Relationship Between Despotic Leadership and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Self Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 10 : 5307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, Y., W. He, and Y. Wang. 2017. " Challenge–Hindrance Stress and Academic Achievement: Proactive Personality as Moderator." Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 45, no. 3 : 441 – 452. https://doi.org/10.2224/SBP.5855.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mao Zhao; Siti Mistima Maat; Norzaini Azman and En Zheng</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref121"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1461720 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Stressors, Achievement Motivation, and Academic Performance among University Faculty in China: The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mao+Zhao%22">Mao Zhao</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2581-3003">0000-0002-2581-3003</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Siti+Mistima+Maat%22">Siti Mistima Maat</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5507-9081">0000-0002-5507-9081</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Norzaini+Azman%22">Norzaini Azman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6969-0511">0000-0001-6969-0511</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22En+Zheng%22">En Zheng</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4583-010X">0000-0002-4583-010X</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(4):1182-1195. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 14 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Evaluation+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Evaluation (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Management%22">Stress Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Motivation%22">Teacher Motivation</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/pits.23388 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This research scrutinizes the link between academic stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) and the academic performance of university faculty, while also considering the mediating role of achievement motivation. Furthermore, the study evaluates the moderating influence of faculty self-efficacy on the relationship between these stressors and academic performance. The sample encompassed 7000 full-time teachers from universities across Sichuan Province, China, with approximately 55% female participants and an average teaching experience of 13 years. Faculty academic stressors (challenge and hindrance stressors), achievement motivation, self-efficacy, and academic performance were all assessed using self-report techniques. The application of structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between academic stressors (both challenge and hindrance types) and academic performance. Achievement motivation was found to entirely mediate the effects of academic stressors (challenge and hindrance stressors) on academic performance. In addition, the study underscored the moderating impact of self-efficacy on the relationship between faculty academic stressors and academic performance. The significance of enhancing faculty academic performance through stress reduction, increased achievement motivation, and self-efficacy is discussed. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1461720 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461720 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/pits.23388 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: 1182 Subjects: – SubjectFull: College Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement Type: general – SubjectFull: Stress Variables Type: general – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness Type: general – SubjectFull: Correlation Type: general – SubjectFull: Universities Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics Type: general – SubjectFull: Barriers Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Self Evaluation (Individuals) Type: general – SubjectFull: Stress Management Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Motivation Type: general – SubjectFull: China Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Stressors, Achievement Motivation, and Academic Performance among University Faculty in China: The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mao Zhao – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Siti Mistima Maat – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Norzaini Azman – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: En Zheng IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0033-3085 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1520-6807 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 62 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
