Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development

Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development Theresa M. Glomba,* and Michael J. Tewsb,1 a Department of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, University of Minnesota, 3-300 Carlson School of Management, 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA b Department of Management, School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University, G80 Statler Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Received 22 March 2002

Abstract Despite increased research attention, the emotional labor construct remains without a clear conceptualization and operationalization. This study designed a conceptually grounded, psychometrically sound instrument to measure emotional labor with an emphasis on the experience of discrete emotions—the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (DEELS). This conceptualization and operationalization of emotional labor departs from existing efforts because it focuses on the behavior of emotional expression, encompassing genuine, faked, and suppressed positive and negative emotional displays. Results provide initial evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the DEELS. Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Emotions are a pervasive, inseparable part of the human experience and of organizational life. Emotions shape perceptions, direct behavior, and influence interactions with others (Frijda, 1986). Despite their pervasiveness, research has only recently begun to examine the role of emotions and affect in the workplace (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). One area within the emotional arena *

Corresponding author. Fax: 1-612-624-8360. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.M. Glomb), [email protected] (M.J. Tews). 1 Fax: 1-607-254-2971. 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00038-1

2

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

receiving increased research attention is emotional labor, a construct first defined by Hochschild (1983) as the ‘‘management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display’’ (p. 7). Following a number of qualitative articles describing the nature and outcomes of emotional labor in a variety of occupational groups (e.g., James, 1989; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991; Stenross & Kleinman, 1989; Sutton, 1991; Tolich, 1993), the 1990s witnessed a shift to more quantitative conceptualizations and operationalizations (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Mann, 1999a; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Wharton, 1993). However, consensus among researchers has yet to be reached on either theoretical or methodological grounds. Conceptual and operational clarity is needed to advance emotional labor research. Accordingly, this study presents a conceptualization of emotional labor, development of a corresponding operationalization—the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (DEELS)—and preliminary validation evidence. 1.1. The emotional labor construct Following HochschildÕs (1983) original conceptualization of emotional labor, several others have been advanced (see Grandey (2000) and Zapf (2002) for reviews). Conceptual ambiguity persists, but each conceptualization has in common the underlying assumption that emotional labor involves managing emotions and emotional expression to be consistent with organizational or occupational ‘‘display rules,’’ defined as expectations about appropriate emotional expression (Goffman, 1959). Emotional labor is ‘‘the act of displaying appropriate emotion (i.e., conforming with a display rule)’’ (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993, p. 90), regardless of whether the emotion is discrepant with internal feelings. This commonality in conceptualization is accompanied by differences in theoretical approaches. Generally, theoretical treatments converge around three themes: internal states, internal processes, and external behavioral displays. 1.1.1. Internal state of dissonance The first theoretical perspective emphasizes the internal state of emotional dissonance, or ‘‘the state that exists when there is a discrepancy between the emotional demeanor that an individual displays because it is considered appropriate, and the emotions that are genuinely felt but that would be inappropriate to display’’ (Mann, 1999a, p. 353). Emotional dissonance, like cognitive dissonance, creates an unstable state within the individual and may lead to negative outcomes such as estrangement between self and true feelings (Hochschild, 1983), job-related stress (Adelmann, 1995; Pugliesi, 1999; Wharton, 1993), and emotional exhaustion (Morris & Feldman, 1997). Researchers agree that dissonance is a component of emotional labor, but there is disagreement over whether it is a necessary condition. Mann argued that emotional labor is present only when an individual fakes or suppresses an emotion; she excluded genuinely felt displays in her conceptualization. Ashforth and Humphrey argued that emotional labor is performing in accordance with display rules;

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

3

an employee who genuinely feels enthusiastic and appropriately expresses this is still performing work, although he or she is not experiencing dissonance. In this case there is arguably a good fit between the employee and the requirements of the position (Arvey, Renz, & Watson, 1998). Given that experiencing emotions increases oneÕs level of physiological and psychological arousal, expressing genuinely felt emotions may lead to emotional exhaustion (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Following Morris and FeldmanÕs (1996) argument, frequent expression of a variety of intense emotions for a long duration may constitute labor. Thus, dissonance may not be required for emotion work to be laborious. 1.1.2. Internal process The second theoretical perspective focuses on the internal processes involved in creating an emotional display, typically self-regulation processes (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 2000). Gross (1998) defined emotional regulation as ‘‘the process by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions’’ (p. 275). Emotional labor research has translated these regulatory processes into notions of deep acting (attempts to modify internal feelings to be consistent with display rules) and surface acting (modifying outward displays to be consistent with display rules). Both surface acting and deep acting produce behavioral emotional display, albeit through different means. Notions of surface and deep acting are linked with those of emotional dissonance. Brotheridge and Lee (1998) acknowledge that surface acting may be a manifestation of dissonance. These processes appear to be the bridge between the internal state and behavioral display; specifically, emotional dissonance drives self-regulation processes that are in turn manifested in behavioral emotional displays. 1.1.3. Behavioral display The third theoretical approach focuses on the external behavioral displays of employees. Ashforth and HumphreyÕs (1993) conceptualization of emotional labor, ‘‘the act of displaying appropriate emotion (i.e., conforming with a display rule),’’ emphasizes the act or behavior rather than the internal state or process driving such behavior. Ashforth and Humphrey ‘‘prefer to focus on behavior rather than on the presumed emotions underlying behavior’’ (p. 90). They argue that compliance with display rules is ultimately manifested in behavior that is observable and influences interaction (e.g., service transactions). Similarly, self-regulatory processes are ultimately manifested in behavioral display. A focus on the behavioral display of emotion may be beneficial given the difficulty in tapping the unobservable dissonant states and internal processes of individuals. External behavioral displays are given attention in all of the approaches and we believe the behavior of emotional expression (or the lack of it) is the most proximal component of emotional labor. In addition, we believe it is necessary to examine the interplay of felt emotion in conceptualizing the construct. Researchers should be aware of the internal emotional states and processes in addition to behavioral

4

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

displays, and attempt to integrate these components for complete understanding of emotional labor (Rubin, Tardino, Daus, & Munz, in press). 1.1.4. Summary of approaches It could appear that the emotional labor domain is in a theoretical quandary, flooded with a multitude of conceptualizations. However, recognizing the complexity of emotional expression on the job, emotional labor may best be conceptualized as a network of related constructs. The varying theoretical perspectives are not in opposition and may be viewed as complementary. For example, display rules may motivate an employee to experience an internal state of dissonance, requiring the employee to employ self-regulation strategies, resulting in an observable emotional display. The theoretical orientation a researcher adopts will depend on the research question. Recognizing the complexity of emotional labor as a network of distinct but related constructs can advance emotional labor research. 1.2. The proposed conceptualization Our conceptualization of emotional labor focuses primarily on behavioral expression and non-expression of felt or unfelt emotions in accordance with display rules. We propose that emotional labor is the (1) expression of emotions and (2) non-expression of emotions, which may or may not be felt, in accordance with display rules. Emotional displays may be characterized broadly as either positive or negative. This framework may be illustrated along two dimensions as shown in Fig. 1. The first dimension classifies a display as either an appropriate expression of an emotion or an appropriate non-expression of an emotion. The second dimension is a felt continuum, indicating whether the expression or non-expression is consistent with an internal feeling. All cells represent compliance with display rules. To illustrate, suppose that negative displays are prohibited and positive displays are required. Cells 2 and 3

Fig. 1. Conceptualization of emotional labor. Displays may be characterized as either positive or negative.

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

5

represent cases where compliance is inconsistent with felt emotion. In Cell 2, negative emotions are felt, but not expressed (an appropriate suppressed display). In Cell 3, positive emotions are expressed, but not felt (an appropriate faked display). These cells have been the primary focus of emotional labor research. Cells 1 and 4 represent cases where compliance is consistent with felt emotion. In Cell 4, positive emotions are both felt and expressed (an appropriate genuine display). In Cell 1, emotion is neither felt nor expressed. Cell 1 will be excluded from the proposed measure as it represents the absence of both felt and expressed emotion, even though not expressing an unfelt emotion in accordance with display rules is conceptually labor according to the proposed definition. Although in general agreement with Ashforth and HumphreyÕs behaviorally focused conceptualization, our conceptualization extends and is differentiated from previous work in several ways. First, our framework explicitly accounts for underlying felt emotion that co-occurs with conformance to display rules. Ashforth and HumphreyÕs definition does not account for the underlying emotional state, though they do note that individuals may conform to display rules with or without feeling the corresponding emotions (e.g., a service worker may either genuinely display enthusiasm when interacting with customers, or this enthusiasm may be fake). Second, the proposed conceptualization acknowledges that conforming to display rules may involve expressing an appropriate emotion or not expressing an inappropriate emotion (e.g., conformance may involve expressing enthusiasm or suppressing frustration). Third, we recognize the role of genuinely felt displays. Genuinely felt displays as well as faked displays and suppression may constitute emotional labor. Faking and suppressing may be more taxing than genuinely expressing emotions, but inclusion of genuine displays in an emotional labor framework and corresponding operationalization allows for greater comprehensiveness. Existing operationalizations do not explicitly distinguish among genuine expression, faked expression, and suppression dimensions (e.g., sample items include ‘‘When I work with customers/clients, the way I act and speak often doesnÕt match what I really feel’’ and ‘‘Pretend to have emotions that you donÕt really feel’’ and ‘‘I was not really being me’’ (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Mann, 1999a, 1999b; Morris & Feldman, 1997)). Fourth, our conceptualization distinguishes between positive and negative emotions. Display rules may often require expressing positive emotions and not expressing negative emotions, but such norms may not always be the case and should not be assumed. Further, research suggests that positive and negative affective states have distinct behavioral antecedents and correlates (Carver, 2001; Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999; Watson, Weise, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999); this may extend to emotional labor as well. Finally, our framework encompasses other forms affect in general, not exclusively emotions, but also moods. Frijda (1993) suggests that moods are typically less intense, of shorter duration, or less likely to be attributable to a specific object and to have a specific response, as compared to emotions. Affect is a term used to encompass a variety of feeling states including moods and emotions (George, 1996). Thus the emotional labor construct might be better termed ‘‘affective management.’’

6

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

However, we will retain the term emotional labor by convention, recognizing that the construct broadly encompasses emotions as well as moods. 1.3. The proposed operationalization The proposed operationalization is comprised of three subscales representing three cells in Fig. 1—genuine expression (Cell 4), faked expression (Cell 3), and suppression (Cell 2). Each subscale includes 14 discrete positive and negative emotions (e.g., enthusiasm, happiness, frustration, and sadness) representative of six emotion families (i.e., love, joy, anger, sadness, fear, and hate). Because the proposed operationalization includes specific emotions beyond a broad positive–negative distinction, we have named the measure the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale—the DEELS. Measurement of discrete emotions may be the greatest departure of the DEELS from alternative assessments that often elect not to specify the emotional state or combine potentially different emotional experiences (e.g., ‘‘Pretend to have emotions that you donÕt really feel,’’ Morris & Feldman, 1997; ‘‘I laughed or frowned. . .’’ Mann, 1999a, 1999b). By assessing specific emotions representative of different emotion families, the DEELS removes the guesswork regarding what respondents consider positive and negative emotions. This focus on discrete emotions is consistent with a recent call for increased attention to discrete emotions rather than more general moods and affective states (Brief & Weiss, 2002). 1.3.1. Selection of discrete emotions The discrete emotions represented in the scale are derived from a semantic classification proposed by Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, and OÕConnor (1987) which reduced a variety of emotions into six families: love, joy, surprise, anger, sadness, and fear. Two additional categories were considered: (1) the hate category, thought to reflect the negative valence of the love family, was included due to its potential relevance in a work context; and (2) the shame family, which concerns the self and cognitions about the self (Lewis, 1993), was included to tap possible self-referent emotions. Shaver et al. provide exemplars of each of the basic emotion categories. For example, the basic emotion category anger includes subordinate emotions such as irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, rage, fury, wrath, spite, etc. Initial item selection was done by the authors to select items that (1) were identified as the six basic emotions in Shaver et al., (2) were thought to be in common language usage (e.g., irritation rather than fury), and (3) were likely to be experienced in a work setting (e.g., aggravation rather than revulsion). Forty emotion words were selected from this initial procedure. The 40 items were further reduced to 18 items based on (1) perceived potential ambiguity (e.g., affection may connote several forms of liking); (2) redundancy with other items (e.g., surprise was selected rather than astonishment); and (3) representation of differing levels of emotional intensity (e.g., inclusion of both disliking and hate). A pilot study in which the DEELS was administered in paper-and-pencil format was conducted to investigate item characteristics and item functioning in a sample of 112 Masters students (61% female; average age was 26.5 years; 64% White, 13%

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

7

Asian, 3% Black, 3%, Hispanic, and 17% other or missing). Following the pilot study, four items were removed from the scale. Emotions from the shame family (i.e., shame and humiliation) were removed in this phase. Shame is not one of the basic emotion families identified by Shaver et al. and its self-referent nature presents difficulties in conceptualizing how it may be expressed; these difficulties in expression may have been responsible for their infrequent endorsement. Love and surprise were removed due to participantsÕ confusion about what these items represent in a work setting as well as having low endorsement. The 14 remaining items had adequate item means and distributions. The final scale of 14 items represents six categories—the original Shaver et al. categories of basic emotions (with the exception of the surprise category) and the additional hate category. Each emotion category contains two or three emotions as follows: love category (liking and concern), joy category (enthusiasm, happiness, and contentment), anger category (anger, aggravation, and irritation), sadness category (distress and sadness), fear category (fear and anxiety), and the hate category (hate and disliking). The scale does not capture the full range of emotions, however the items are representative of the basic emotion families and these families are designed to be representative of the construct space. 1.3.2. DEELS subscales As noted above, the DEELS is comprised of three subscales—genuine expression, faking, and suppression. For each subscale, respondents are asked to consider each discrete emotion in relation to their interactions with customers/clients, supervisors, and coworkers over a six-month period. For the genuine subscale, respondents are asked, ‘‘How often do you genuinely express (enthusiasm) when you feel that way?’’ For the faked subscale, they are asked, ‘‘How often do you express feelings of (enthusiasm) on the job when you really donÕt feel that way?’’ For the suppression subscale, they are asked, ‘‘How often do you keep (enthusiasm) to yourself when you really feel that way?’’ For the faked and suppression subscales, the words ‘‘faking’’ and ‘‘suppressing’’ are purposely omitted due to their socially undesirable connotations. For the genuine subscale, response choices range from (1) ‘‘I never genuinely express this’’ to (5) ‘‘I genuinely express this many times a day.’’ For the faked subscale, response choices range from (1) ‘‘I never express this when I do not feel like it’’ to (5) ‘‘I express this many times a day when I do not feel like it.’’ The response choices for the suppression subscale include an additional item: ‘‘I never feel this.’’ This response option is analyzed as a missing value, as never feeling an emotion does not allow for suppression of that emotion. The scale is presented in Appendix A. As is evident from the response options, the DEELS assesses frequency of emotional expression. In addition to frequency, Morris and Feldman include variety, intensity, and duration as dimensions of external emotional displays. While only frequency is directly measured, the DEELS does provide an indirect means to assess variety and intensity; variety may be captured through our inclusion of emotions representative of different emotion families and intensity may be captured though our inclusion of emotions with varying intensities. A focus on frequency may not necessarily be a severe limitation of the proposed measure, following Morris and

8

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

FeldmanÕs argument (1996) that frequency of interaction is the central component of emotional labor. Further, Zapf (2002) notes that ‘‘all studies that somehow measured emotion work measured the frequency, and it was the basic idea of Hochschild (1983) that too frequent emotional displays would overtax the employee and lead to alienation and exhaustion’’ (p. 242). Thus, the DEELSÕ emphasis on frequency is consistent with emotional labor research. 1.4. Validation strategy Our three-fold validation strategy examined item and scale properties, compared scale scores across samples in a known-groups validation, and examined relationships between the DEELS and other constructs. 1.4.1. Factor structure Confirmatory, rather than exploratory, factor analysis was chosen to test competing models of the DEELS given that we relied on an existing framework of emotions and could make specific a priori hypotheses about the factor structure. Further, the use of exploratory factor analysis when an a priori factor structure exists has received criticism (Armstrong, 1967). Confirmatory analyses reduce the likelihood that a specific structure would be supported by a covariance matrix by chance. We assessed three alternative models: a 1-factor solution including all scale items; a 3-factor solution based on the genuine, faking, and suppression subscales; and a 6-factor solution dividing the genuine, faking, and suppression subscales into positive and negative emotions. Given our proposed conceptualization of emotional labor and the evidence on positive and negative emotions constructs, we expected the 6-factor solution to provide the best fit. 1.4.2. Known-groups validation The second step of the DEELS validation was to perform a known-groups validation (DeVellis, 1991). Known-groups validation can establish construct validity by assessing the measureÕs ability to differentiate groups that are known to differ a priori. Because research suggests that health service jobs require positive expression and police work allows for negative expression (Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991), samples of assisted living employees and police investigators were selected for comparison. These groups were hypothesized to differ in their frequency of genuine expression, faking, and suppression of positive and negative emotions. Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested: H1. Compared to police investigators, the assisted living employees will report greater frequency of: H1a. genuinely expressing positive emotions H1b. faking positive emotions H1c. suppressing negative emotions H2. Compared to the assisted living employees, the police investigators will report greater frequency of: H2a. genuinely expressing negative emotions

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

9

H2b. faking negative emotions H2c. suppressing positive emotions 1.4.3. Convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity We gathered additional support for construct validity by examining relations between the DEELS and other scales in its ‘‘nomological network’’ (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). First, we examined relations between the DEELS and existing dissonance and surface acting measures (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Morris & Feldman, 1997) to establish convergent validity. These measures reflect expressing emotions that are unfelt and were expected to be positively correlated with the DEELS faking and suppression subscales. H3. The DEELS faking and suppression scales will be correlated with the dissonance and surface acting dimensions of emotional labor from alternative measures. Second, we examined relations between the DEELS and Morris and FeldmanÕs (1997) duration measure to establish discriminant validity. The DEELS assesses frequency of emotional expression and is expected to be relatively independent of duration of interaction. H4. The DEELS faking and suppression scales will be uncorrelated with Morris and FeldmanÕs duration dimension. Finally, we examined the relationships between the faking and suppression subscales and emotional exhaustion to establish the criterion-related validity of the DEELS. A frequently reported outcome of emotional dissonance is emotional exhaustion or other components of burnout (Abraham, 1998; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Kruml & Geddes, 2000a, 2000b; Morris & Feldman, 1997). Thus, we expected frequent discrepancy between felt and expressed emotion, as measured by the faking and suppression scales of the DEELS, to lead to emotional exhaustion. H5. The DEELS faking and suppression subscales will be positively correlated with emotional exhaustion.

2. Method 2.1. Procedure and participants Data were collected from five samples: a graduate student sample and employee samples from four workplace settings—a hotel, a managed healthcare organization, an assisted living group home organization, and a metropolitan police force. Samples were selected based on convenience and on an attempt to collect data from diverse occupations likely to engage in differing levels and forms of emotional labor. After examining scale characteristics of the samples (see Appendix B), samples were combined for analyses with the exception of the known-groups validation that explicitly compared the assisted living and police samples.

10

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

Questionnaires were used to obtain scale data. Respondents from the student sample completed surveys during class time. For the hotel, managed care, and police samples, questionnaires were distributed to employees with postage-paid envelopes for returning questionnaires directly to the researchers. Surveys were administered on-site for assisted living employees. Participation was voluntary for all samples and confidentiality was assured. 2.1.1. Sample 1 Eighty-nine students enrolled in the Masters in Human Resources or MBA graduate programs at a Midwestern University constituted the student sample. With one exception, all respondents were either currently employed or had prior work experience. After deletion of this case and two cases where respondents indicated that the questions were irrelevant due to their lack of interaction with customers or clients, the sample size was 86. Fourteen percent of the sample were employed full-time, 48% were employed part-time, and 38% were not currently employed. Twenty-two percent of the sample had supervisory experience. The majority of respondents were employed in accounting, administrative, human resources, or marketing roles. The average tenure (for current or most current position) was 1.7 years. Average age was 26.9 years, and the sample was composed of 55 women and 31 men (3 did not report gender). All students elected to participate in the study. 2.1.2. Sample 2 The data from the hotel sample were obtained from front office, kitchen, housekeeping, and administrative employees of a 150-room hotel located in a small East Coast city. One hundred questionnaires were provided for distribution, and 19 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 19%. All but one of the respondents were employed full-time. The average organizational tenure was 7.7 years. Average age was 42.9 years, and the sample was composed of 12 women and 7 men. 2.1.3. Sample 3 The data for the third sample were obtained from employees of an East Coast managed healthcare organization. Respondents included case managers, salespersons, and administrative personnel. One hundred and twelve questionnaires were administered, and 44 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 39.3%. All but two of the respondents were employed full-time. The average organizational tenure was 2.4 years. Average age was 37.2 years, and the sample was composed of 34 women and 10 men. 2.1.4. Sample 4 The data for the fourth sample were obtained from investigators in a large Midwestern metropolitan police force. One hundred and eighty questionnaires were administered, and 55 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 30.6%. All respondents were employed full-time. The average organizational tenure was 15.2 years. Average age was 41.7 years, and the sample was comprised of 14 women and 41 men.

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

11

2.1.5. Sample 5 The data for the fifth sample were obtained from employees of a group home assisted living organization. Two hundred and seventeen surveys were obtained from on-site administrations at 33 homes in conjunction with monthly staff meetings. (Twelve employees present at staff meetings declined to participate, primarily because they were engaged in work tasks.) Sixty-one percent of the sample was employed part-time. The average organizational tenure was 1.8 years. Average age was 24.3 years, and the sample was 77% female. 2.2. Measures In addition to the DEELS, participants in Samples 1–4 completed the following measures (Sample 5 employees provided data for the DEELS only). 2.2.1. Emotional dissonance Emotional dissonance was assessed with Morris and FeldmanÕs (1997) three-item measure and Brotheridge and LeeÕs (1998) two-item measure. The Morris and Feldman measure includes items such as ‘‘When I work with customers/clients, the way I act and speak often doesnÕt match what I really feel’’ and has scale anchors ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The Brotheridge and Lee measure includes items such as ‘‘Pretend to have emotions that you donÕt really feel’’ and has scale anchors ranging from (1) never to (5) always. The respective internal consistency reliabilities were .73 and .86. 2.2.2. Surface acting Surface acting was measured with Brotheridge and LeeÕs (1998) five-item measure that included items such as ‘‘Resist expressing my true feelings’’ and has scale anchors ranging from (1) never to (5) always. The internal consistency reliability was .87. 2.2.3. Duration Morris and FeldmanÕs (1997) three-item measure assessed duration of emotional displays. The measure includes items such as ‘‘ItÕs not unusual for me to spend half an hour or more with a customer/client at one time’’ and has scale anchors ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The internal consistency reliability was .78. 2.2.4. Emotional exhaustion Emotional exhaustion was measured with five items such as ‘‘I feel emotionally drained from my work,’’ developed by Wharton (1993). (WhartonÕs original scale contains six items; however, the item ‘‘I feel IÕm working too hard on my job’’ was not used in this study, as it did not appear relevant in capturing the emotional exhaustion construct and may be assessing something akin to the work overload facet of job stress.) For the five items, respondents were asked to indicate how often

12

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

they experienced each item. Scale anchors ranged from (1) never to (5) almost every day. The internal consistency reliability is .85.

3. Results 3.1. Confirmatory factor analyses Confirmatory factor analyses conducted in LISREL VIII (J€ oreskog & S€ orbom, 1993) tested unidimensional, 3-, and 6-factor models using a combined sample (Samples 1–5). The unidimensional model had all items loading on a single factor. The 3-factor model separated the DEELS into genuine, faking, and suppression subscales. The 6-factor model further separated the genuine, faking, and suppression subscales into positive and negative emotions. To determine the extent to which the data conformed to the models proposed, a variety of goodness-of-fit indices were examined. Table 1 presents the fit indices for the factor analyses. Comparisons of fit statistics and the Dv2 =Ddf test [ð2499:98
1885:44Þ=ð819
816Þ ¼ 204:84] indicated the 3-factor solution provides a significantly better fit than the 1-factor solution. Comparisons of the fit statistics and Dv2 =Ddf tests ½ð1885:44
918:68Þ=ð816
804Þ ¼ 80:56 indicated the 6-factor solution fit these data better than the 3-factor solution. Overall, the fit statistics for the 6-factor model provided good support for this model and were within the range of generally acceptable values (Kline, 1998), with the exception of the GFI and AGFI, which were a bit lower than desired. An 18-factor solution, distinguishing among the six emotion families for genuine, faked, and suppression, was not tested given the good fit of the 6-factor model and the potential instability of estimates when a model specifies a large number of parameters (i.e., 18 factors with 42 items). The 6-factor solution based on the positive and negative, genuine, faking, and suppression dimensions is consistent with the framework of Shaver et al. which proposes that positive and negative are‘‘superordinate’’ dimensions in the emotion

Table 1 Fit indices for 1-, 3-, and 6-factor confirmatory factor analyses Model

v2

df

v2 =df

GFI

AGFI

CFI

NNFI

RMSR

RMSEA

One-factora Three-factorb Six-factorc

2499.98 1885.44 918.68

819 816 804

3.05 2.31 1.14

.44 .54 .79

.38 .49 .76

.41 .62 .96

.38 .60 .96

.14 .14 .065

.16 .13 .028

Note. GFI, goodness-of-fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; NNFI, non-normed fit index; RMSR, root mean squared residual; and RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation. a The 1-factor solution includes all scale items. b The 3-factor solution distinguishes among genuine, faked, and suppression. c The 6-factor solution distinguishes between positive and negative emotions for genuine, faked, and suppression.

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

13

Table 2 Factor loadings and intercorelations from 6-factor confirmatory factor analysis Genuine Positive Contentment Concern Happiness Liking Enthusiasm Disliking Aggravation Fear Anxiety Sadness Irritation Distress Hate Anger

Faked Negative

.65 .45 .80 .76 .78

Positive

Suppressed Negative

.71 .64 .82 .81 .83 .71 .76 .50 .58 .47 .72 .57 .60 .76

Positive

Negative

.65 .62 .76 .77 .81 .74 .72 .62 .63 .70 .70 .67 .60 .68

.70 .76 .69 .72 .73 .68 .77 .76 .70

Factor intercorrelations 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Genuine positive 1 Genuine negative ).04 Faking positive .23 Faking negative ).07 Suppressing positive ).08 Suppressing negative .02

2

3

4

5

6

1 .18 .43 .27 .23

1 .36 .20 .45

1 .43 .24

1 .58

1

Note. Analyses were run on combined sample n ¼ 421. However, because of the scoring of the suppression scale resulting in missing data, pairwise, rather than listwise deletion, was employed. Thus, the sample size for each bivariate entry in the matrix fluctuated between 159 and 410 with a mean pairwise sample size of 355.

hierarchy, and with previous research suggesting that affect and emotion experienced is often adequately captured in positive and negative dimensions (Tellegen et al., 1999; Watson et al., 1999). Table 2 presents the loadings of the DEELS items on each scale from the 6-factor solution. Following our adoption of the 6-factor model, the discrete emotions were combined for the following analyses to form positive and negative emotion subscales for the genuine expression, faking, and suppression dimensions. The internal consistency reliabilities for the positive emotion subscales were .80 (genuine), .87 (faked), and .82 (suppression). The internal consistency reliabilities for the negative emotion subscales were .86 (genuine), .88 (faked), and .94 (suppression). 3.2. Known-groups validation The results of the known groups validation testing for group mean differences between the assisted living and police samples are presented in Table 3. Hypothesis

14

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

Table 3 Mean group differences Sample

Genuine positive Genuine negative Fake positive Fake negative Suppress positive Suppress negative

Assisted living

Police

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F

p

3.60 1.71 2.11 1.13 1.61 2.41

.76 .47 .92 .30 .80 .85

2.85 2.10 1.91 1.40 1.77 2.49

.73 .59 .72 .42 .73 .79

46.87 18.73 3.19 24.74 1.79 .42

.00 .00 .08 .00 .18 .52

Assisted living sample, n ¼ 217; police sample, n ¼ 55.

1a received support; assisted living employees reported genuinely expressing positive emotions more frequently than police investigators (F ¼ 46:87, p < :01). Results for Hypothesis 1b, which posited that assisted living employees would report faking positive emotions more frequently than police investigators, approached significance (F ¼ 3:19, p < :08). Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported; police investigators reported genuinely expressing and faking negative emotions more frequently than the assisted living employees (F ¼ 18:73, p < :01, F ¼ 24:74, p < :01). No support was obtained for differences in suppressing positive and negative emotions (Hypotheses 1c and 2c). Overall, results suggest the DEELS can reasonably differentiate between these two occupational groups for genuine and faked expression. 3.3. Relationships between the DEELS and other constructs The correlations among the DEELS subscales and other measures to assess convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity are presented in Table 4 for the combined sample (Samples 1–4) and for individual samples in Appendix B. Hypothesis 3 regarding convergent validity was tested by examining relationships between the DEELS faked and suppression subscales and emotional dissonance and surface acting measures. The Morris and Feldman dissonance subscale was significantly positively related to the faking positive (r ¼ :26), faking negative (r ¼ :21), suppressing positive (r ¼ :23), and suppressing negative (r ¼ :31) subscales of the DEELS, suggesting convergent validity. Similarly, Brotheridge and LeeÕs dissonance scale was significantly positively related to the faking positive (r ¼ :43), faking negative (r ¼ :28), suppressing positive (r ¼ :16), and suppressing negative (r ¼ :29) subscales. Further, Brotheridge and LeeÕs surface acting scale was significantly positively related to faking positive (r ¼ :43), faking negative (r ¼ :22), suppressing positive (r ¼ :22), and suppressing negative emotions (r ¼ :44). The moderate positive correlations between the DEELS positive and negative faked and suppression subscales and the dissonance and surface acting scales of

Emotional exhaustion Genuine positive Genuine negative Faking positive Faking negative Suppressing positive Suppressing negative Duration (M and F)a Dissonance (M and F)a Dissonance (B and L)b Surface Acting (B and L)b

Mean

2.77 3.30 2.03 2.12 1.29 1.68 2.47 2.74 2.84 2.49 2.66

SD .95 .77 .60 .88 .44 .70 .82 .97 .91 .92 .85

(.85) ).09 .38 .35 .17 .22 .40 .13 .36 .30 .40

1 (.80) .14 .22 .00 .04 .10 ).14 ).34 ).04 ).08

2

(.86) .23 .39 .23 .22 ).01 .23 .28 .18

3

(.87) .39 .36 .45 ).03 .26 .43 .43

4

(.88) .34 .23 .08 .21 .28 .22

5

(.82) .59 ).11 .23 .16 .22

6

(.94) ).09 .31 .29 .44

7

(.78) .12 .11 .01

8

(.73) .52 .56

9

(.86) .74

10

(.87)

11

Note. a coefficients appear on the diagonal in parentheses. Due to missing data for some subscales, combined sample size ranged from 191 to 204. * p < :05. a M and F denotes Morris and Feldman (1997) measures. b B and L denotes Brotheridge and Lee (1998) measures.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics, a coefficients, and intercorrelations among emotional exhaustion, DEELS, Morris and Feldman, and Brotheridge and Lee emotional labor scales for Samples 1–4

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23 15

16

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

other measures suggest that the DEELS is sufficiently convergent with existing measures, supporting Hypothesis 3. The relationships between the DEELS subscales and Morris and FeldmanÕs duration dimension were assessed to determine discriminant validity of the DEELS. Support for Hypothesis 4 was obtained for each of the DEELS subscales; each of the correlations was non-significant and was correlated at or below j:14j. Responses to the frequency based DEELS were relatively independent of the duration of interactions. Finally, Hypothesis 5 proposed relations between the faking and suppression subscales and emotional exhaustion. Higher levels of emotional exhaustion were reported by employees who more frequently fake positive (r ¼ :35), fake negative (r ¼ :17), suppress positive (r ¼ :22), and suppress negative (r ¼ :40) emotions. These correlations suggested that these four components of the DEELS were related to higher levels of emotional exhaustion. Taken together, these bivariate results provided support for the adverse impact of faking and suppressing emotions. This was particularly true for faking positive and suppressing negative emotions. Although no hypotheses were explicitly stated for genuine expression, genuinely expressing negative emotions was positively related to emotional exhaustion (r ¼ :38), whereas a non-significant relationship was observed for genuinely expressing positive emotions.

4. Discussion The various analyses provided support for the conceptualization of emotional labor offered here and the validity of the DEELS. The confirmatory factor analyses showed reasonable support for the six subscales of the DEELS. Although the DEELS includes 14 discrete emotions, the ability to represent them with six factors is advantageous to researchers. Nonetheless, these discrete emotions more clearly specify the emotion space and may be of interest to researchers in certain contexts. Support for the validity of the DEELS was provided by comparisons between occupational groups with differing norms for emotional expression. Comparisons between the assisted living and police samples suggested that these two groups differ in their frequency of genuinely expressing and faking positive and negative emotions in accordance with expectations. Interestingly, no significant differences were found for suppressing positive and negative emotions. The lack of difference for suppressing negative emotions is similar to Brotheridge and GrandeyÕs (2002) finding that display rules for hiding negative emotions did not differ across occupations; suppression of negative emotions may be a universal expectation across occupations. Relations between the DEELS and other measures suggested adequate convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. The DEELS faking and suppressing scales were all significantly related to alternative assessments of dissonance or surface acting (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Morris & Feldman, 1996). Interestingly,

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

17

the DEELS faking positive and suppressing negative subscales tended to be more strongly related to the dissonance and surface acting scales than the faking negative and suppressing positive subscales. This pattern of relations is not surprising, given that faking positive and suppressing negative are the conditions frequently considered in discussions of emotional labor. Given that the items on alternative measures do not ask specifically about positive and negative emotions (e.g., ‘‘I often have to hide my true feelings while at work,’’ Morris and Feldman; ‘‘Pretend to have emotions that I donÕt really feel,’’ Brotheridge and Lee), faking positive and suppressing negative are likely to be the types of emotional displays considered by respondents, thus resulting in higher correlations. This suggests that measures such as the DEELS, which explicitly query forms of emotional labor that are less commonly considered, may provide better coverage of the emotional labor construct space. The lack of relations with the duration dimension offers evidence of discriminant validity. Relations between the DEELS and emotional exhaustion provided further validation evidence. The faking positive, faking negative, suppressing positive, and suppressing negative DEELS subscales were all significantly correlated with emotional exhaustion. Further, genuinely expressing negative emotions was also significantly correlated with emotional exhaustion, suggesting that expressing genuinely felt emotions might be taxing to an individual. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, the reverse direction of causality for the emotional expression-emotional exhaustion relationships cannot be ruled out. It may well be the case that those who experience greater emotional exhaustion are more apt to fake and suppress emotions. Future research might be directed at investigating the causal process and possible interactions between faking and suppressing positive and negative emotions in predicting emotional exhaustion. For example, faking positive emotions while suppressing negative emotions may be more taxing than faking positive emotions while in a neutral affective state. 4.1. Limitations and future research directions The current study investigated a limited number of organizations and occupations. Future validation attempts should examine additional occupations, particularly those occupations with extreme or clear display rules that would allow additional known groups validations, or occupations in which negative emotions are appropriate to display. Such samples will serve to extend these results. Convergent and discriminant validation efforts were limited to comparisons with two alternative measures of emotional labor. Further validation evidence could be provided through comparisons to: other measures of emotional labor, such as those by Mann (1999b) and Kruml and Geddes (2000a, 2000b), reported display rules for an occupation, or emotional labor reports using non-survey methodologies such as behavioral observation. Despite the limitations of the current study and the long road toward continuing construct validation, we are optimistic that this measure will help advance the quantitative investigation of emotional labor in the workplace.

18

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

Acknowledgments Portions of this research were supported by a Grant-In-Aid of Research, Artistry and Scholarship from the University of Minnesota. We are particularly grateful to the organizations that participated in this research.

Appendix A In the following sections, we would like to know about the emotions you express to others, such as customers, clients, coworkers, and supervisors, and emotions that you feel but do not express while on the job. That is, we are interested in what you express through your body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Consider your experiences at work over the past six months. The following sections may seem somewhat similar, so please read the instructions carefully. A.1. Expressing emotions you feel In this section, we would like to know how often you feel and express various emotions to others on the job. For example, how often do you express enthusiasm when you really feel that way, or how often do you express irritation when you really feel that way? How often do you genuinely express ______ when you feel that way?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Irritation Anxiety Contentment Sadness Concern Disliking Aggravation Fear Happiness Distress Liking Hate Anger Enthusiasm

I genuinely express this many times a day

I genuinely express this a few times a day

I genuinely express this a few times a week

I genuinely express this a few times a month

I never genuinely express this

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

19

A.2. Expressing emotions you do not feel In this section, we would like to know how often you express emotions on the job when you really do not feel these emotions. For example, how often do you express feelings of happiness or excitement when you really do not feel that way? How often do you express feelings of _______ on the job when you really do not feel that way? I express this many times a day when I do not feel it

I express this a few times a day when I do not feel it

I express this a few times a week when I do not feel it

I express this a few times a month when I do not feel it

I never express this when I do not feel it

5

4

3

2

1

A.3. Keeping emotions to yourself In this section, we would like to know about emotions you do not express on the job but feel like expressing. That is, we are interested in how often you keep certain emotions to yourself because you feel you should not express them on the job. For example, how often do you keep feelings of anger or frustration to yourself when you really feel that way? How often do keep feelings of ______ to yourself when you really feel that way? I keep this to myself many times a day 5

I keep this to myself a few times a day 4

I keep this to myself a few times a week 3

I keep this to myself a few times a month 2

I never I keep this never to myself feel this 1

0

Note. The ‘‘I never feel this’’ (0) response is treated as a missing value as never feeling an emotion does not allow for suppression of that emotion.

2.80 2.94b 2.55c 2.84d

3.72 3.57 2.92 2.85

2.09 2.02 1.83 2.10

2.43 2.26 1.71 1.91

1.30 1.32 1.12 1.40

1.68 1.93 1.47 1.77

1. Emotional exhaustion

2. Genuine positive

3. Genuine negative

4. Faking positive

5. Faking negative

6. Suppressing positive

a

Mean

.59 .92 .72 .73

.44 .64 .26 .42

.80 1.18 .87 .72

.57 .77 .56 .59

.57 .66 .70 .73

.82 1.12 1.01 1.04

SD

.35 .37 ).09 .18

).01 .12 .28 ).17

.26 .44 .42 .41

.33 .41 .38 .56

.31 .52 .01 .11

(.86) (.89) (.87) (.82)

4

.26 .02 .17 .28 .38 .57 .17 .32

.16 .05 .07 ).11

.28 .49 .38 .35

(.88) (.87) (.83) (.87)

.01 .00 ).02 ).03

).02 .13 .11 .30

.32 .47 .35 .41

3

.19 .19 .13 .10

(.68) (.66) (.68) (.82)

2

).19 ).10 ).09 ).15

(.77) (.90) (.89) (.90)

1

.27 .57 .16 .34

(.89) (.95) (.82) (.79)

5

(.78) (.90) (.76) (.82)

6

7

8

9

10

11

Descriptive statistics, a coefficients, and intercorrelations among emotional exhaustion, DEELS, Morris and Feldman, and Brotheridge and Lee Emotional Labor Scales for Samples 1–4

Appendix B

20 T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

.90 .87 .84 .79

.68 1.21 .74 .95

.72 1.04 .82 1.00

.62 1.01 .86 .93

2.57 1.88 2.59 3.39

2.48 3.09 2.75 3.34

2.58 2.37 1.88 2.87

2.65 2.82 2.16 3.02

8. Duration (M and F)e

9. Dissonance (M and F)e

10. Dissonance (B and L)f

11. Surface acting (B and L)f

.03 ).06 ).07 ).10 .35 ).07 .37 .30 .24 ).28 .37 .40 .06 ).33 .33 .31

).27 ).37 .04 ).31 ).12 ).18 ).04 ).06 ).20 ).11 .02 ).14

.31 .46 .31 .42 .21 .13 .38 .35 .36 .36 .36 .44

.27 .29 .00 .29

.20 .14 ).39 .03

.13 .27 .09 ).10

.16 ).13 .23 .21

.30 .64 .33 .44

Note. a coefficients appear on the diagonal in parentheses. a The first line represents Sample 1 (Student) statistics; n ¼ 86. b The second line represents Sample 2 (Hotel) statistics; n ¼ 19. c The third line represents Sample 3 (Managed care) statistics; n ¼ 44. d The fourth line represents Sample 4 (Police) statistics; n ¼ 55. e M and F denotes Morris and Feldman (1997) measures. f B and L denotes Brotheridge and Lee (1998) measures. * p < :05.

.69 1.02 .98 .79

2.53 2.57 2.30 2.49

7. Suppressing negative

.25 .57 .51 .61

.32 .35 .58 .58

.32 .45 .31 .53

.11 ).34 .06 .16

.35 .64 .40 .54

.05 ).06 .08 .44

.11 .05 .13 .51

.09 .13 .07 .39

.11 ).07 .09 ).06

.20 .35 ).10 .37

.21 .08 .12 .23

.22 .05 .07 .07 .28 .28 .45 .66

.21 .12 .27 .45

.33 .35 .25 .40

).15 ).19 ).11 .03

).18 ).10 ).06 ).13 .19 .33 .12 .20

(.92) (.92) (.97) (.93)

.57 .66 .52 .62

).13 ).27 ).16 .09

).06 .11 ).08 .09

).01 ).33 ).05 .21

(.72) (.83) (.72) (.72)

.50 .55 .49 .63

.36 .56 .55 .64

(.66) (.82) (.55) (.66)

.55 .68 .69 .84

(.75) (.80) (.81) (.92) (.79) (.84) (.91) (.89)

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23 21

22

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

References Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 229–246. Adelmann, P. (1995). Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S. L. Sauter, & L. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress. Easton, MD: Easton Publishing. Armstrong, J. S. (1967). Derivation of theory by means of factor analysis or Tom Swift and his electric factor analysis machine. The American Statistician, 21, 17–21. Arvey, R. D., Renz, G. L., & Watson, T. W. (1998). Emotionality and job performance: Implications for personnel selection. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management: Vol. 16 (pp. 103–147). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97–125. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307. Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of ‘‘people work.’’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17–39. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (1998). On the dimensionality of emotional labor: Development and validation of an emotional labor scale. Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San Diego, CA. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57–67. Carver, C. S. (2001). Affect and the functional bases of behavior: On the dimensional structure of affective experience. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 345–356. Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381–403). New York: Guilford Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday and Anchor Books. George, J. M. (1996). Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 145–171). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–100. Gross, J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. James, N. (1989). Emotional labour: Skill and work in the social regulation of feelings. Sociological Review, 37, 15–42. J€ oreskog, K. G., & S€ orbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8.03. Morresville, IN: Scientific Software. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. Kruml, S., & Geddes, D. (2000a). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor: The heart of HochschildÕs work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 8–49. Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000b). Catching fire without burning out: Is there an ideal way to perform emotional labor?. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 177–188). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Lewis, M. (1993). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame and guilt. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions. New York: Plenum Press. Mann, S. (1999a). Emotion at work: To what extent are we expressing, suppressing, or faking it? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 347–369.

T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23

23

Mann, S. (1999b). Hiding what we feel, faking what we donÕt. Shaftesbury, Dorset, UK: Element Books Limited. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986–1010. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 257–274. Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and wellbeing. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 125–154. 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, 749–775. Rubin, R. S., Tardino, V. M., Daus, C. S., & Munz, D. C. (in press). A reconceptualization of the emotional labor construct: On the development of an integrated theory of perceived emotional dissonance and emotional labor. In C. E. J. Hartel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Challenges. Shaver, N., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & OÕConnor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523. Stenross, B., & Kleinman, S. (1989). The highs and lows of emotional labor: DetectivesÕ encounters with criminals and victims. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17, 435–452. Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245–268. Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10, 297–303. Tolich, M. B. (1993). Alienating and liberating emotions at work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 361–381. Watson, D., Weise, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). Two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 18 (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work. Work and Occupations, 20, 205–232. Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237–268.

Further reading Maslach, C. (1978). How people cope. Public Welfare, 36, 56–58. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23–37. Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 163–183. Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotional dissonance and employee well-being. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. Haertel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 189–214). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.