Weld.la.psu.edu



11Emotional LaborDisplay Rules and Emotion Regulation at WorkAlicia A. Grandey, Katelyn E. England, and Louis Boemerman(in press) In the Handbook of Workplace Affect (Eds., Liu-Qin Yang, Russell Cropanzano, Catherine Daus, & Vicente Martinez-Tur). Cambridge University Press.Emotional labor continues to gain popular media interest (Ben-Achour, 2015; Levy, 2018) and scholarly interest (Grandey, Diefendorff, & Rupp, 2013; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). Emotional labor is when employees manage emotions as part of a work role (Hochschild, 1983), such as a service provider’s cheery greeting to customers or a therapists’ suppression of shock at their client’s secrets. Prototypically, emotional labor is performed during interactions with the public, by service employees who are selected for and trained in emotional displays with links to financial or professional gains (Grandey, Diefendorff, et al., 2013; Hochschild, 1983), though this conceptualization is broadening to include coworkers and leader–follower interactions. The potential trade-off between the performance goals of the organization and the employees’ well-being is central to the study of emotional labor.In this chapter, we provide a focused summary of the two dominant approaches to emotional labor: display rules, or the emotional job expectations that vary by occupation or target, and emotion regulation, or the effortful strategies to conform to those expectations that vary by person and events (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Grandey, Diefendorff, et al., 2013). For each of these two approaches, we review the construct (i.e. the definition, dimensions and common measures), the consequences (i.e. the evidence for how the concept is associated with performance and well-being), and the context (i.e. the personal and situational antecedents and moderators of outcomes). Our purpose is to provide a broad overview for new scholars; for detail about theoretical mechanisms and future directions, please see previously published reviews (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Grandey & Melloy, 2017; Mallory & Rupp, 2017), books (Grandey, Diefendorff, et al., 2013), and meta-analyses (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, & Wax, 2012).Display Rules: Emotional Labor as Work Role ExpectationsDisplay Rules: ConstructEmotional display rules are communicated through formal policies and practices (i.e. recruitment, selection, training, performance monitoring) and informal norms and socialization (i.e. climate, culture) (Gabriel, Cheshin, Moran, & Van Kleef, 2016; Pugh, Diefendorff, & Moran, 2013). Display rules act as goals for work behaviors: if the internal state is discrepant from the display rule, employees are motivated to regulate their expressions (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003), especially if there are practices (i.e. rewards and consequences) that make one committed to the goal (Gosserand & Diefendorff, 2005).Types and Dimensions of Display RulesThere are three main types of display rules studied in the literature: integrative display rules for positive emotions (e.g. happiness and compassion, as expected in service, healthcare, and education) (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002); differentiating display rules for negative emotions (e.g. anger and contempt, as expected in bill collectors, the military, and police interrogators) (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991); and neutralizing display rules that convey rationality (e.g. as expected in judges and doctors) (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Most of the research has focused on integrative display rules to “show positive” and “hide negative” (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). In contrast, organizations may lack display rules or encourage authentic emotional expression (Christoforou & Ashforth, 2015; Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Grandey, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012). Parke and Seo (2017) provide a taxonomy of “affective climates,” crossing emotional valence (positive to negative) with authenticity (high to low) to produce four main types of display rules across organizations.An important question for emotional display rules is whether they are unique job requirements (in-role), or voluntary prosocial behaviors such as citizenship behavior (extra-role). In the first study to test this idea, the majority of respondents ( > 90 percent) endorsed integrative emotional displays as “in-role” (Diefendorff, Richard, & Croyle, 2006), though this could be due to the sample being working students. Results of a follow-up study with full-time working adults (Grandey, Diefendorff, Grabarek, & Diamond, 2009) are shown in Table 11.1. Positive emotional displays with customers were seen as less in-role but still required for a majority of respondents (58.51 percent) and even more so for employees in “people work” occupations (70 percent; see Table 11.1), but were seen as helpful but less required (i.e. more extra-role) when projecting toward coworkers or to employees in other occupations. Notably, positive emotional displays were seen as in-role by more respondents than were organizational citizenship behavior and less so than customer citizenship behaviors, showing that emotional labor expectations are unique compared to other prosocial behaviors.Begin Table 11.1Table 11.1Comparing in-role requirements for emotional displays and citizenship behaviors by target and occupation CustomersCoworkersOccupationnEmotional displaysServicecitizenshipEmotional displaysOrganizational citizenshipCustomer service6467.776.936.129.3Sales/retail3265.171.238.436.0Healthcare4370.0a84.132.932.1Education3454.878.226.710.0Admin/clerical4663.278.833.135.5Technical/financial3154.976.933.130.2Physical labor942.865.613.319.8Supervisor/leader2749.661.837.830.3Overall28658.51a74.19b31.43c27.90cNotes: Values indicate percentage of respondents endorsing the behavior as an in-role requirement (1) instead of extra-role or irrelevant (0). In bottom row, superscripted values that are different are significantly different from each other. Sample consisted of working non-student respondents (55.6% female) who worked more than 20 hours a week and had at least some interaction with customers and coworkers (Grandey et al., 2009). Emotional displays measured with 6 items: showing enthusiasm/friendliness/concern and hiding stress/disappointment/frustration. Service citizenship measured with 5 items: Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29–41. Organizational citizenship measured with 5 items: Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.End Table 11.1Multiple Levels and Measurement of Display RulesThese display rules emerge from multiple sources and have been studied at different levels of analysis. See Table 11.2 for example measures. The most common approach is individual perceptions – the extent employees believe that they are expected to show positive or hide negative at work – which is a function of the employee’s personality, relationship to the target, and contextual situation (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Display rules can also be assessed at the job or occupational level, sometimes by aggregating individual perceptions (see Table 11.1; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). To obtain display rules without relying on self-reported perceptions, researchers use the public database O*Net (), which provides incumbent ratings for the emotional demands and activities for specific job titles (Bhave & Glomb, 2016; Glomb, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Rotundo, 2004; Grandey, Chi, & Diamond, 2013; Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007). Display rules have also been manipulated in the lab: participants are instructed to follow positive display rules or negative display rules (Bono & Vey, 2007) or neutral display rules (Trougakos, Jackson, & Beal, 2011), or to display autonomy (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007), and then asked to perform a work simulation. Finally, display rules can occur at the group or organizational level. In one early example of this approach, Diefendorff and colleagues (2011) found that hospital nurses had shared perceptions of integrative display rules that differed in strength across departments. Other field studies found that work units shared perceptions of norms for authenticity (Grandey et al., 2012) and the explicitness of display rules (Christoforou & Ashforth, 2015).Begin Table 11.2Table 11.2Examples of emotional labor measures: emotional display rules and emotion regulationSource examplesItem examplesDisplay rulesEmployee perceptions – integrative display rulesEmotional work requirements: Best, Downey & Jones (1997) in Brotheridge & Grandey (2002)Show positive and hide negative display rules: Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand (2005)My organization expects me to …… reassure people who are distressed or upset.… express feelings of sympathy.… hide my disgust over something someone has done.Employee perceptions – discrete emotionsDisplay rule assessment inventory: Diefendorff & Gregarus (2009), based on Matsumoto; response categories from “suppress emotion” to “amplify emotion”When I feel <insert emotion>, I …… express my feelings, but with more intensity than my true feelings.… express my feelings with no inhibitions.… express my feelings, but with less intensity than my true feelings.… remain neutral and express nothing.Group perceptionsExplicitness of display rules: Christoforou & Ashforth (2015) in retail storesPositive display rules: Diefendorff et al. (2011) in hospital unitsClimate of authenticity: Grandey et al. (2016) in hospital unitsRate agreement with items:I received training regarding how to behave and to express myself with customers.The expectations of my organization with regard to expressing appropriate emotions when interacting with customers were made clear to me.Manipulated/experimentalShow positive vs. display autonomy (call center simulation): Goldberg & Grandey (2007)Show positive or show neutral (poll-taker simulation): Trougakos et al. (2011)Show positive or show negative (tour guide or bill collector simulation): Bono & Vey (2007)Experimental instructions: Our organization and its customers value …… employees being very friendly and outgoing. Our motto here is “putting a smile on your face will put the smile in your voice!”(show positive display rules)… employees being real and being themselves. Our motto here is “We want you to be you!” (display autonomy)Other-rated/observerO*Net – Occupational emotional demands: Diefendorff et al. (2006); Bhave & Glomb (2016); Grandey et al. (2013) How important are the following to this job?Performing for or working directly with the publicConcern for othersCooperationSelf-controlStress toleranceEmotion regulationEmployee reported – emotion regulation strategiesEmotion regulation scale – all surface acting (SA) and deep acting (DA) items shown in column to the right: Brotheridge & Lee (2003)Faking, perspective-taking, reappraisal, and venting in response to hostile interactions: Grandey, Dickter, & Sin (2004)Faking, suppression, attention deployment, and cognitive change: Diefendorff et al. (2019)Hide my true feelings about situations (SA)Resist expressing my true feelings (SA)Pretend to have emotions that I don’t really have (SA)Try to actually experience the emotions that I must show (DA)Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display (DA)Really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my job (DA)Employee reported –discrete emotion strategiesDiscrete emotional expression scale: Glomb & Tews (2004)How often do you …… genuinely express <emotion> when you feel that way? (authentic)… express feelings of <emotion> when you really don’t feel that way? (SA – fake)… keep <emotion> to yourself when you really feel that way? (SA – hide)Group perceptionsWorkgroup deep acting: Becker & Cropanzano (2015) in hospital nurses, used Grandey et al. (2004) deep acting items (all four shown)I generally tried to look at the positive side of things to change how I feel.I attempted to focus on happier things.I tried to see things from the other person’s point of view.I tried to reinterpret what people said or did so that I don’t take their actions personally.Manipulated/experimentalStimuli for deep acting or none: Grandey et al. (in press)Stimuli for surface acting or deep acting: Grandey et al. (2005)Trained confederate to perform surface and deep acting: Henning-Thurau et al. (2006)Trained participant for deep acting: Hu?lsheger et al. (2014)(Screen shot examples of videos)Observer-rated surface and deep actingCustomer-rated: Groth et al. (2009) (adapted Brotheridge & Lee items)Coworker- or subordinate-rated: Grandey (2003); Fisk & Friesen (2012)The employee tried to actually experience the emotions s/he had to show to me. (DA)The employee just pretended to have the emotions s/he displayed to me. (SA)Note: Source examples shown in bold type indicate the source of the items in the “Item examples” column.End Table 11.2Display Rules: ConsequencesJob PerformancePositive display rules guide employee behavior toward the desired standard (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003) and are linked to effective interpersonal performance (Christoforou & Ashforth, 2015; Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Trougakos et al., 2011). Negative display rules are more rare, though displays of contempt (Melwani & Barsade, 2011) or anger (van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004) can increase status and influence others. While display rules direct emotional behavior, they can reduce attention to other behaviors. Positive display rules resulted in more errors compared to display autonomy (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007) and neutralizing display rules reduced task persistence compared to positive display rules (Trougakos et al., 2011). In a field study of retail stores, display rules had an inverted-U effect, such that more controlling rules were correlated with less voluntary citizenship behavior and poorer sales performance (Christoforou & Ashforth, 2015).Strain and Well-BeingIn general, perceptions of “hide negative” display rules are linked to negative affect and strain whereas positive display rules have a more mixed result (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Positive display rules reduce expressive autonomy and authenticity (Grandey, Rupp, & Brice, 2015) but are linked to job satisfaction (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Diefendorff et al., 2011) and vigor (Bhave & Lefter, 2017). In fact, positive display rules improved moods and job satisfaction compared to neutralizing display rules (Diefendorff et al., 2006; Trougakos et al., 2011). An experimental role-play found that occupational requirements to show positive versus those to show negative did not differ in terms of reported and physiological stress (Bono & Vey, 2007).Display Rules: ContextAntecedentsDisplay rules are not simply a function of the job. They are a function of employee personality: trait positive affectivity is linked to showing positive display rules and trait negative affectivity is linked to hiding negative display rules (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). They are also a function of the target: display rules are weaker for similar-power and close targets (i.e. close coworkers) than for differential power and less close targets (i.e. supervisors, subordinates, more distant coworkers) (Diefendorff & Greguras, 2009; Diefendorff, Morehart, & Gabriel, 2010). Display rules are also a function of broader cultural norms. Integrative display rules with customers were more strongly endorsed by US service employees than by Chinese employees (Allen, Diefendorff, & Ma, 2014) or French employees (Grandey, Rafaeli, Ravid, Wirtz, & Steiner, 2010).ModeratorsThe fit between display rules, the employee, and the context determines outcomes. Positive display rules were less distressing than negative rules for extraverts (Bono & Vey, 2007), but positive display rules induced physiological stress for those who are more neurotic than those who are less so (Hopp, Rohrmann, Zapf, & Hodapp, 2010), consistent with a personality fit perspective. Positive display rules are more stressful when employees are facing unpleasant or hostile customers, which requires more regulatory effort (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Hopp et al., 2010). Consistent with an effort–reward imbalance perspective, financial rewards for performance buffer dissatisfaction from display rules (Grandey, Chi, et al., 2013). Jobs with positive display rules along with professional identity and social status, such as those in management, healthcare, or education, seem to see more benefits than entry-level service jobs (Bhave & Glomb, 2016; Grandey & Diamond, 2010; Humphrey, Ashforth, & Diefendorff, 2015).Emotional Labor as Emotion Regulation StrategiesEmotion Regulation: ConstructIn Hochschild’s (1983) original work, dramaturgical acting strategies were used to produce emotions (Grandey, 2003). Later, the psychological model of emotion regulation was used to understand emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Gross, 1998).Types and DimensionsHochschild (1983) observed flight attendants and identified two effortful strategies for managing emotions with the public: surface acting and deep acting. Surface acting is changing expressions by hiding felt and/or showing unfelt emotions to match the display rules, whereas deep acting is changing inner feelings through cognitive strategies (e.g. reappraisal, refocusing) or physiological strategies (e.g. deep breathing, drinking coffee) such that feelings and expressions match display rules. Both are effortful and tend to be positively correlated at the person level (Grandey, 2003; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012) and the event level (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015). Scholars have also argued that showing felt emotions, or authentic displays, is a third response to display rules (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005; Glomb & Tews, 2004). More recently, scholars have drawn on the broader emotion regulation literature (Gross, 1998) and shown that employees use a wide variety of strategies, including situation selection, situation modification, and cognitive distraction (Diefendorff, Gabriel, Nolan, & Yang, 2019; Diefendorff, Richard, & Yang, 2008).Multiple Levels and Measurement of Emotion RegulationAs shown in Table 11.2, surface and deep acting are typically measured as self-reported tendencies in the work role (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003) or in response to events (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015) and specific emotions (Glomb & Tews, 2004). Emotion regulation styles may emerge at the group level through socialization and role modeling processes (Becker, Cropanzano, & Butts, 2015), though it is more common to assess within-person variations across days (Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012; Wagner, Barnes, & Scott, 2014) and events (Diefendorff et al., 2019; Diefendorff et al., 2008) consistent with the variable and dynamic nature of emotions (Grandey & Melloy, 2017). Experimentally, scholars have manipulated training for deep acting (Hülsheger, Lang, Schewe, & Zijlstra, 2014), surface or deep acted positive displays with photos and videos (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005; Grandey, Houston, & Avery, 2019; Houston, Grandey, & Sawyer, 2018), and even faked anger compared to genuine anger (C?té, Hideg, & van Kleef, 2013; Hideg & van Kleef, 2017). Finally, surface and deep acting is measured by observers: coworkers (Grandey, 2003), customers (Groth, Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009) and followers of leaders (Fisk & Friesen, 2012) assess the extent the employee appears to be faking or trying to feel emotional displays.Emotion Regulation: ConsequencesAccording to meta-analyses and cross-lagged studies, surface acting is strongly negatively related to employee well-being with weak negative associations with performance, and deep acting is moderately positively related to job performance with weak and mixed associations with well-being (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Hülsheger, Lang, & Maier, 2010; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012).Job PerformanceDeep acting positively influences evaluations of emotional performance and customer satisfaction via improved trust, exceeded expectations, and perceived service orientation (Cheshin, Amit, & Van Kleef, 2018; Chi & Grandey, 2016; Groth et al., 2009; Houston et al., 2018; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). Service employees using deep acting receive more tips (Chi, Grandey, Diamond, & Krimmel, 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2014) and teams that tend to use deep acting have improved team outcomes (Becker et al., 2015). Both strategies are linked to motivational resources such as vigor/exhaustion or regulatory depletion (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Oerlemans, & Koszucka, 2018): daily deep acting enhances energy, which then improved conflict handling with customers (Huang, Chiarburu, Zhang, Li, & Grandey, 2015) and reduced interpersonal mistreatment (Deng, Walter, Lam, & Zhao, 2017). In contrast, daily surface acting depletes self-control, which means more service sabotage (Chi & Grandey, 2016), less coworker-directed citizenship behavior (Trougakos, Beal, Cheng, Hideg, & Zweig, 2015) and more coworker and subordinate harming (Deng et al., 2017; Yam, Fehr, Keng-Highberger, Klotz, & Reynolds, 2016).Employee Strain and Well-BeingSurface acting creates dissonance between displays and feelings and also creates inauthenticity, which predicts negative moods, energy depletion, job burnout, and job dissatisfaction, even after controlling for negative states and traits (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Judge, Woolf, & Hurst, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Scott & Barnes, 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2018). Surface acting is also linked to absences and turnover due to emotional exhaustion (Goodwin, Groth, & Frenkel, 2011; Nguyen, Groth, & Johnson, 2016). A recent study suggests that faking positive is problematic compared to feeling positive, but faking negative improved well-being more than feeling badly, though this may be a function of the managerial sample (Lennard, Scott, & Johnson, 2019). Deep acting has mixed relationships with moods and exhaustion (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Judge et al., 2009), but some find social benefits from appearing authentic (Zhan, Wang, & Shi, 2015), which can be energy-enhancing (Xanthopoulou et al., 2018).Implications go beyond the work context. Surface acting has negative mood spillover affecting work–family conflict and marital dissatisfaction (Grandey & Krannitz, 2016; Krannitz, Grandey, Liu, & Almeida, 2015; Wagner et al., 2014; Yanchus, Eby, Lance, & Drollinger, 2010), and diminished self-control affecting sleep (e.g. can’t turn off television) and heavy alcohol use (e.g. can’t stop drinking) (Grandey, Frone, Melloy, & Sayre, 2019; Wagner et al., 2014). Daily use of deep acting enhances self-control, which reduces harming behavior (Deng et al., 2017) and alcohol consumption (Sayre, Grandey, & Chi, 2018).Emotion Regulation: ContextAntecedentsDisplay rules predict more effortful emotion regulation strategies (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). At the person level, employees higher in neuoroticism use more surface acting, and those higher in agreeableness use more deep acting (Diefendorff et al., 2005; Diefendorff et al., 2011). Other individual differences also predict surface and deep acting (see Dahling & Johnson, 2013); for example, prosocial work motives predict deep acting whereas preventive or instrumental motives predict surface acting (Maneotis, Grandey, & Krauss, 2014; Von Gilsa, Zapf, Ohly, Trumpold, & Machowski, 2014) and the need to belong to a group (e.g. when one is a minority) predicts using surface acting (Kim, Bhave, & Glomb, 2013; Yagil & Medler-Liraz, 2017).Situationally, the frequency of mistreatment predicts surface acting but not deep acting (Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010; Wu & Hu, 2013), though in vivo lab studies show that both surface and deep acting are used to cope (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015; Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). A negative spiral occurs, where employee surface acting evokes negative reactions by the target (Zhan et al., 2015), which increases employee negative mood and reduces self-control (Deng et al., 2017), which in turn evokes more surface acting (Groth & Grandey, 2012). Positive or supportive interactions increase the likelihood of deep acting, suggesting a way to break the spiral (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012).ModeratorsSurface acting has mixed effects on service performance, depending on the skill of the actor (Chi et al., 2011) and expectations of the customer (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, et al., 2005; Grandey, Houston, et al., 2019). When employees are efficacious or skilled in surface acting (e.g. self-monitors, extraverts), it is linked to less strain, reduced absences, and better performance (e.g. as shown by tips) (Chi et al., 2011; Deng et al., 2017; Judge et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2016; Pugh, Groth, & Hennig-Thurau, 2011) because less effort is required than for less skilled surface actors. The job context also moderates outcomes: surface acting is less problematic when work behaviors are autonomous (Grandey, Fisk, & Steiner, 2005; Grandey, Frone, et al., 2019; Johnson & Spector, 2007) and financially rewarded (Grandey, Chi, et al., 2013), and deep acting is more beneficial when the job tasks are intrinsically challenging (Huang et al., 2015). Finally, the social context matters. Surface acting is exhausting and distressing unless employees are also engaging in prosocial helping behavior (Uy, Lin, & Ilies, 2016) and in authentic emotional behavior with their coworkers (Grandey et al., 2012; McCance, Nye, Wang, Jones, & Chiu, 2013), and are receiving social support from the organization (Duke, Goodman, Treadway, & Breland, 2009) or developing rewarding relationships with clients (Grandey, Houston, et al., 2019; Wang & Groth, 2014).Future Directions and ConclusionsTheorizing and empirical evidence around emotional labor has come a long way since the early qualitative work by Hochschild (1983). Current work demonstrates that employees vary in the expectations for emotional displays and effortful regulation, and that these emotional display rules – and how the employees regulate to conform to them – have implications for performance and for their own health and well-being. Scholars present competing views about whether emotional labor is more beneficial or harmful (Grandey et al., 2015; Humphrey et al., 2015), and whether the benefits and costs are real or simply spurious due to shared variance with affectivity and mood (Semmer, Messerli, & Tschan, 2016). Today’s scholars must capture the transient nature of emotions and emotion regulation by using within-personal methodology and should compare distinct theoretical mechanisms to better understand why and when emotional labor is beneficial or harmful. Given that emotional labor is performed with customers, coworkers, leaders, and subordinates, this research has broad implications for almost all jobs and employees.chapter-referencesReferencesAllen, J. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Ma, Y. (2014). Differences in emotional labor across cultures: A comparison of Chinese and US service workers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 21–35.Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88–115.Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace – a reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97–125.Barsade, S., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? The influence of a culture of companionate love in the long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551–598.Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Butts, M. (2015). Good acting requires a good cast: A meso-level model of deep acting in work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 232–249.Ben-Achour, S. (2015). Don’t worry, be happy! Or else you’re fired. KERA News, 23 November, post/dont-worry-be-happy-or-else-youre-firedBhave, D., & Glomb, T. M. (2016). The role of occupational emotional labor requirements on the surface acting–job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Management, 42(3), 722–741.Bhave, D., & Lefter, A. (2017). The other side: Occupational interactional requirements and work–home enrichment. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), , J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion, neuroticism, and self-monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 177–192.Brotheridge, C., & Grandey, A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17–39.Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 365–379.Cheshin, A., Amit, A., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2018). The interpersonal effects of emotion intensity in customer service: Perceived appropriateness and authenticity of attendants’ emotional displays shape customer trust and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 97–111.Chi, N.-W., & Grandey, A. (2016). Emotional labor predicts service performance depending on activation and inhibition regulatory fit. Journal of Management, 45(2), 673–700, , N.-W., Grandey, A., Diamond, J., & Krimmel, K. (2011). Want a tip? Service performance as a function of extraversion and emotion regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1337–1346.Christoforou, P. S., & Ashforth, B. (2015). Revisiting the debate on the relationship between display rules and performance: Considering the explicitness of display rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 249–261.C?té, S., Hideg, I., & van Kleef, G. A. (2013). The consequences of faking anger in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 453–463.Dahling, J. J., & Johnson, H. (2013). Motivation, fit, confidence, and skills: How do individual differences influence emotional labor? In A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. New York, NY: Psychology/Routledge.Deng, H., Walter, F., Lam, C. K., & Zhao, H. H. (2017). Spillover effects of emotional labor in customer service encounters toward coworker harming: A resource depletion perspective. Personnel Psychology, 70(2), 469–502, doi:10.1111/peps.12156Diefendorff, J., Croyle, M., & Gosserand, R. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339–357.Diefendorff, J., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A., & Dahling, J. J. (2011). Emotional display rules as work unit norms: A multilevel analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 170–186.Diefendorff, J. M., Gabriel, A. S., Nolan, M. T., & Yang, J. (2019). Emotion regulation in the context of customer mistreatment and felt affect: An event-based profile approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), doi:10.1037/apl0000389Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor process: A control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 945–959.Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2009). Contextualizing emotional display rules: Taking a closer look at targets, discrete emotions, and behavior responses. Journal of Management, 35(4), 880–898.Diefendorff, J. M., Morehart, J., & Gabriel, A. S. (2010). The influence of power and solidarity on emotional display rules at work. Motivation & Emotion, 34, 120–132.Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 284–294.Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. (2006). Are emotional display rules formal job requirements? Examination of employee and supervisor perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 273–298.Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Yang, J. (2008). Linking emotion regulation strategies to affective events and negative emotions at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 498–508.Duke, A. B., Goodman, J. M., Treadway, D. C., & Breland, J. W. (2009). Perceived organizational support as a moderator of emotional labor/outcomes relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 1013–1034.Fisk, G. M, & Friesen, J. P. (2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as predictors of followers’ job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1–12.Gabriel, A. S., Cheshin, A., Moran, C. M., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2016). Enhancing emotional performance and customer service through human resources practices: A systems perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 26, 14–24.Gabriel, A. S., & Diefendorff, J. (2015). Emotional labor dynamics: A momentary approach. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1804–1825.Glomb, T. A., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Rotundo, M. (2004). Emotional labor demands and compensating wage differentials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 700–714.Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 1–23.Goldberg, L., & Grandey, A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 301–318.Goodwin, R. E., Groth, M., & Frenkel, S. J. (2011). Relationships between emotional labor, job performance, and turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 538–548.Gosserand, R. H., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1256–1264.Grandey, A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95–110.Grandey, A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface and deep acting as predictors of emotional exhaustion and service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96.Grandey, A., Chi, N.-W., & Diamond, J. (2013). Show me the money! Do financial rewards for performance enhance or undermine the satisfaction from emotional labor? Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 569–612.Grandey, A., & Diamond, J. (2010). Interactions with the public: Bridging job design and emotional labor perspectives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 338–350.Grandey, A., Diefendorff, J., Grabarek, P., & Diamond, J. (2009). Emotional displays as requirement: Differences across targets and performance effects. Symposium presentation for the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Grandey, A., Diefendorff, J., & Rupp, D. E. (2013). Bringing emotional labor into focus: A review and integration of three research lenses. In A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. New York, NY: Psychology/Routledge.Grandey, A., Fisk, G., Mattila, A., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. (2005). Is service with a smile enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 38–55.Grandey, A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must “service with a smile” be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 893–904.Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free to be you and me: A climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 1–14.Grandey, A., Frone, M., Melloy, R., & Sayre, G. (2019). When are fakers also drinkers? A self-control view of emotional labor and alcohol consumption among US service workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(4), 482–497.Grandey, A., & Gabriel, A. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 323–349.Grandey, A., Houston, L., & Avery, D. R. (2019). Fake it to make it: Emotional labor reduces the racial disparity in service performance judgments. Journal of Management, 45(5), , A., Kern, J., & Frone, M. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 63–79.Grandey, A., & Krannitz, M. A. (2016). Emotion regulation at work and at home. In T. Allen & L. Eby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and family (pp. 81–94). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Grandey, A. A., & Melloy, R. C. (2017). The state of the heart: Emotional labor as emotion regulation reviewed and revised. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 407–422, doi:, A., Rafaeli, A., Ravid, S., Wirtz, J., & Steiner, D. (2010). Emotion display rules at work in the global service economy: The special case of the customer. Journal of Service Management, 21(3), 388–412.Grandey, A. A., Rupp, D., & Brice, W. N. (2015). Emotional labor threatens decent work: A proposal to eradicate emotional display rules. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 770–785.Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–237.Groth, M., & Grandey, A. (2012). From bad to worse : Negative exchange spirals in employee–customer service interactions. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(3), 208–233.Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer reactions to emotional labor: The roles of employee acting strategies and customer detection accuracy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 958–974.Hideg, I., & van Kleef, G. A. (2017). When expressions of fake emotions elicit negative reactions: The role of observers’ dialectical thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1196–1212.Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.Hopp, H., Rohrmann, S., Zapf, D., & Hodapp, V. (2010). Psychophysiological effects of emotional dissonance in a face-to-face service interaction. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 23(4), 399–414.Houston, L., Grandey, A., & Sawyer, K. (2018). Who cares if “service with a smile” is authentic? An expectancy-based model of customer race and differential service interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 86–96.Huang, J. L., Chiarburu, D. S., Zhang, X., Li, N., & Grandey, A. (2015). Rising to the challenge: Deep acting is more beneficial when tasks are appraised as challenging. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1398–1408.Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., & Maier, G. W. (2010). Emotional labor, strain, and performance: Testing reciprocal relationships in a longitudinal panel study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 505–521.Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Schewe, A. F., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2014). When regulating emotions at work pays off: A diary and an intervention study on emotion regulation and customer tips in service jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 263–277, ülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 361–389.Humphrey, R. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). The bright side of emotional labor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 749–769.Johnson, H.-A. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Service with a smile: Do emotional intelligence, gender, and autonomy moderate the emotional labor process? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4), 319–333.Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional labor more difficult for some than for others? A multi-level, experience sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62, 57–88.Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Rubenstein, A. L., Long, D. M., Odio, M. A., Buckman, B. R., Zhang, Y., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2013). A meta-analytic structural model of dispositional affectivity and emotional labor. Personnel Psychology, 66, 47–90.Kim, E., Bhave, D. P., & Glomb, T. M. (2013). Emotion regulation in workgroups: The roles of demographic diversity and relational work context. Personnel Psychology, 66, 613–614.Krannitz, M. A., Grandey, A., Liu, S., & Almeida, D. (2015). Workplace surface acting and marital partner discontent: Anxiety and exhaustion spillover mechanisms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(3), 314–325.Lennard, A. C., Scott, B. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Turning frowns (and smiles) upside down: A multilevel examination of surface acting positive and negative emotions on well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, doi:10.1037/apl0000400Levy, K. (2018). How faking your feelings at work can be damaging. BBC Worklife, 20 June, worklife/article/20180619-why-suppressing-anger-at-work-is-bad Mallory, D., & Rupp, D. E. (2017). Focusing in on the emotion laborer: Emotion regulation at work. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications (3rd edition, pp. 323–344). New York, NY: Guilford.Maneotis, S. M., Grandey, A., & Krauss, A. D. (2014). Understanding the “why” as well as the “how”: Service performance is a function of prosocial motives and emotional labor. Human Performance, 27, 1–18.McCance, A. S., Nye, C. D., Wang, L., Jones, K. S., & Chiu, C. (2013). Alleviating the burden of emotional labor: The role of social sharing. Journal of Management, 39(2), 392–415.Melwani, S., & Barsade, S. G. (2011). Held in contempt: The psychological, interpersonal, and performance consequences of contempt in a work context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 503–520.Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Wax, A. (2012). Moving emotional labor beyond surface and deep acting: A discordance–congruence perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 6–53.Nguyen, H., Groth, M., & Johnson, A. (2016). When the going gets tough, the tough keep working: Impact of emotional labor on absenteeism. Journal of Management, 42(3), 615–643.Parke, M. R., & Seo, M. G. (2017). The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 334–360.Pugh, S. D., Diefendorff, J. M., & Moran, C. M. (2013). Emotional labor: Organization-level influences, strategies, and outcomes. In A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. New York, NY: Psychology/Routledge.Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 377–390.Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 749–775.Sayre, G., Grandey, A., & Chi, N.-W. (2018). Emotional labor and alcohol use: Why and when regulating at work helps or harms regulating after work. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.Scott, B., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 116–136.Scott, B. A., Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. (2012). Chameleonic or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 905–926.Semmer, N. K., Messerli, L., & Tschan, F. (2016). Disentangling the components of surface acting in emotion work: Experiencing emotions may be as important as regulating them. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 46–64.Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 468–481.Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 227–236.Trougakos, J. P., Jackson, C. L., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Service without a smile: Comparing the consequences of neutral and positive display rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 350–362.Uy, M., Lin, K., & Ilies, R. (2016). Is it better to give or receive? The role of help in buffering the depleting effects of surface acting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 57–76.Von Gilsa, L., Zapf, D., Ohly, S., Trumpold, K., & Machowski, S. (2014). There is more than obeying display rules: Service employees’ motives for emotion regulation in customer interactions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 884–896, doi:10.1080/1359432X.2013.839548Wagner, D. T., Barnes, C. M., & Scott, B. A. (2014). Driving it home: How workplace emotional labor harms employee home life. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 487–516.Wang, K. L., & Groth, M. (2014). Buffering the negative effects of employee surface acting: The moderating role of employee–customer relationship strength and personalized services. . Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 341–350.Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and subordinate emotional labor: The moderating role of openness personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 956–970.Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W. G., & Koszucka, M. (2018). Need for recovery after emotional labor: Differential effects of daily deep and surface acting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 481–494.Yagil, D., & Medler-Liraz, H. (2017). Personally committed to emotional labor: Surface acting, emotional exhaustion and performance among service employees with a strong need to belong. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(4), 481–491.Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F. T., Klotz, A. C., & Reynolds, S. (2016). Out of control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 292–301.Yanchus, N. J., Eby, L. T., Lance, C. E., & Drollinger, S. (2010). The impact of emotional labor on work–family outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 105–117.Zhan, Y., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2015). Interpersonal process of emotional labor: The role of negative and positive customer treatment. Personnel Psychology, ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download