{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02148106274731487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009044657998869417, 'mean_word_length': 5.389891696750903, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conservation of resources theory in the organizational behavior context: Theoretical evolution and challenges

: Over the past three decades, conservation of resources theory (COR) has become one of the most widely applied theories in organizational behavior (OB). In 1989, COR was proposed as a new stress model by Stevan E. Hobfoll, who has been a clinical psychologist studying stress disorder. After several major revisions, COR has developed from a stressor-strain model into a motivational theory and built a theoretical framework with several extensions. This framework views an individual’s stock of resources, as well as dynamic changes in resources, as driving mechanisms for a series of stress reactions and coping behaviors. From 1989 to 2020, OB literature has accounted for most citations of the 1989 paper that initially introduced COR theory. A great number of empirical studies in the OB field, covering a variety of themes, investigated the major propositions in COR. These propositions include resource loss and gain spirals, salience of resource gain in the context of resource loss, and more. As a result, COR has become one of the most influential theories for understanding employees’ psychological processes and behavioral motivation. Applying COR in OB research also faces challenges from other theoretical perspectives. For example, the stress-appraisal theory and the adaption theory provide some contrasting viewpoints on stress. Its origin in clinical psychology also invites problems for OB scholars. We propose that OB researchers should avoid tailoring COR’s propositions to OB research questions, which often means neglecting its overarching perspective and purposely selecting isolated viewpoints to serve their own research questions.