Kimberly A French1, Tammy D Allen2, Tyler G Henderson3. 1. Georgia Institute of Technology, United States. Electronic address: kfrench9@gatech.edu. 2. University of South Florida, Department of Psychology, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G, United States. Electronic address: tallen@mail.usf.edu. 3. University of South Florida, Department of Psychology, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G, United States. Electronic address: tghenderson@mail.usf.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Research using the challenge-hindrance stressor framework shows hindrance stressors tend to have detrimental affective and work-related outcomes, whereas challenge stressors have relatively more salutary affective and work-related outcomes. The extent to which this pattern extends to health behaviors, such as sleep, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The current study examines challenge and hindrance work stressors in relation to sleep quantity and quality. METHODS: We use survey data from the MIDUS II (Phase 1 and Phase 4) to test the relationship between self-reported challenge and hindrance stressors and assessments of sleep, including cross-sectional and prospective indicators of sleep quantity, sleep quality (sleep onset latency, sleep disturbance), and sleepiness. RESULTS: Hindrance stressors are associated with prospective sleep quantity, as well as cross-sectional and prospective sleep quality and sleepiness. Further, the pattern of results for sleep quality and sleepiness reflects the expected challenge-hindrance pattern, such that hindrance stressors are more strongly associated with poor sleep quality and sleepiness than are challenge stressors. The same challenge-hindrance pattern was not significant sleep quantity. Work hours and time lag generally did not moderate associations between work stressors and sleep. CONCLUSION: The challenge-hindrance pattern holds for sleep quality and sleepiness, but not sleep quantity. Relationships appear to be consistent across time and differences in work hours. Results have implications for expanding the challenge-hindrance stressor framework and underline the importance of distinguishing between different types of stressors and sleep dimensions.
RATIONALE: Research using the challenge-hindrance stressor framework shows hindrance stressors tend to have detrimental affective and work-related outcomes, whereas challenge stressors have relatively more salutary affective and work-related outcomes. The extent to which this pattern extends to health behaviors, such as sleep, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The current study examines challenge and hindrance work stressors in relation to sleep quantity and quality. METHODS: We use survey data from the MIDUS II (Phase 1 and Phase 4) to test the relationship between self-reported challenge and hindrance stressors and assessments of sleep, including cross-sectional and prospective indicators of sleep quantity, sleep quality (sleep onset latency, sleep disturbance), and sleepiness. RESULTS: Hindrance stressors are associated with prospective sleep quantity, as well as cross-sectional and prospective sleep quality and sleepiness. Further, the pattern of results for sleep quality and sleepiness reflects the expected challenge-hindrance pattern, such that hindrance stressors are more strongly associated with poor sleep quality and sleepiness than are challenge stressors. The same challenge-hindrance pattern was not significant sleep quantity. Work hours and time lag generally did not moderate associations between work stressors and sleep. CONCLUSION: The challenge-hindrance pattern holds for sleep quality and sleepiness, but not sleep quantity. Relationships appear to be consistent across time and differences in work hours. Results have implications for expanding the challenge-hindrance stressor framework and underline the importance of distinguishing between different types of stressors and sleep dimensions.