Glomb, Tews - Emotional Labor a Reconceptualization
-
Upload
andreea-simona-simion -
Category
Documents
-
view
114 -
download
2
Transcript of Glomb, Tews - Emotional Labor a Reconceptualization
Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23
www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Emotional labor: A conceptualizationand 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, USAb 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, psy-
chometrically sound instrument to measure emotional labor with an emphasis on the experi-
ence of discrete emotions—the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (DEELS). This
conceptualization and operationalization of emotional labor departs from existing efforts be-
cause 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.
� 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Emotions are a pervasive, inseparable part of the human experience and of orga-
nizational life. Emotions shape perceptions, direct behavior, and influence interac-
tions 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 � 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 the-
oretical or methodological grounds. Conceptual and operational clarity is needed
to advance emotional labor research. Accordingly, this study presents a conceptual-
ization of emotional labor, development of a corresponding operationalization—the
Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (DEELS)—and preliminary validationevidence.
1.1. The emotional labor construct
Following Hochschild�s (1983) original conceptualization of emotional labor, sev-
eral others have been advanced (see Grandey (2000) and Zapf (2002) for reviews).
Conceptual ambiguity persists, but each conceptualization has in common the un-
derlying assumption that emotional labor involves managing emotions and emo-tional 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., conform-
ing with a display rule)’’ (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993, p. 90), regardless of whether
the emotion is discrepant with internal feelings. This commonality in conceptualiza-
tion 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 disso-
nance, 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 estrangementbetween 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 posi-
tion (Arvey, Renz, & Watson, 1998).
Given that experiencing emotions increases one�s level of physiological and psy-chological arousal, expressing genuinely felt emotions may lead to emotional exhaus-
tion (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Following Morris and Feldman�s (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 increating an emotional display, typically self-regulation processes (Brotheridge &
Lee, 1998; Grandey, 2000). Gross (1998) defined emotional regulation as ‘‘the pro-
cess by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them,
and how they experience and express these emotions’’ (p. 275). Emotional labor re-
search 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 differentmeans.
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 em-
ployees. Ashforth and Humphrey�s (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 ulti-mately manifested in behavioral display. A focus on the behavioral display of emo-
tion 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 oppo-
sition and may be viewed as complementary. For example, display rules may moti-
vate 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 butrelated constructs can advance emotional labor research.
1.2. The proposed conceptualization
Our conceptualization of emotional labor focuses primarily on behavioral expres-
sion 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-expres-
sion 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 emotionsare 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 express-
ing an unfelt emotion in accordance with display rules is conceptually labor accord-
ing to the proposed definition.
Although in general agreement with Ashforth and Humphrey�s behaviorally fo-
cused conceptualization, our conceptualization extends and is differentiated from
previous work in several ways. First, our framework explicitly accounts for underly-ing felt emotion that co-occurs with conformance to display rules. Ashforth and
Humphrey�s 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 en-
thusiasm 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 inappro-
priate emotion (e.g., conformance may involve expressing enthusiasm or suppressingfrustration).
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 operation-
alization 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, theway I act and speak often doesn�t match what I really feel’’ and ‘‘Pretend to have
emotions that you don�t 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 emo-
tions. Display rules may often require expressing positive emotions and not express-
ing 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 emo-
tional 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 in-
tense, 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 encom-
pass 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 sup-
pression (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 opera-
tionalization includes specific emotions beyond a broad positive–negative distinc-
tion, we have named the measure the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor
Scale—the DEELS. Measurement of discrete emotions may be the greatest depar-ture of the DEELS from alternative assessments that often elect not to specify the
emotional state or combine potentially different emotional experiences (e.g., ‘‘Pre-
tend to have emotions that you don�t really feel,’’ Morris & Feldman, 1997; ‘‘I
laughed or frowned. . .’’ Mann, 1999a, 1999b). By assessing specific emotions repre-
sentative 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 classi-
fication proposed by Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, and O�Connor (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 cognitionsabout the self (Lewis, 1993), was included to tap possible self-referent emotions. Sha-
ver et al. provide exemplars of each of the basic emotion categories. For example, the
basic emotion category anger includes subordinate emotions such as irritation, agi-
tation, 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 set-
ting (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 difficultiesin expression may have been responsible for their infrequent endorsement. Love
and surprise were removed due to participants� 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 rep-
resents six categories—the original Shaver et al. categories of basic emotions (with
the exception of the surprise category) and the additional hate category. Each emo-
tion 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 don�t feel that way?’’ For the suppressionsubscale, 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 connota-
tions. 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 sub-
scale, 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 emo-
tional expression. In addition to frequency, Morris and Feldman include variety, in-
tensity, 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
Feldman�s argument (1996) that frequency of interaction is the central component of
emotional labor. Further, Zapf (2002) notes that ‘‘all studies that somehow mea-
sured 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 DEELS� emphasis on frequency isconsistent 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 relation-
ships between the DEELS and other constructs.
1.4.1. Factor structure
Confirmatory, rather than exploratory, factor analysis was chosen to test compet-
ing 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 re-
ceived 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 posi-
tive 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 vali-dation (DeVellis, 1991). Known-groups validation can establish construct validity
by assessing the measure�s 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 re-
port 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 be-tween the DEELS and other scales in its ‘‘nomological network’’ (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955). First, we examined relations between the DEELS and existing disso-
nance 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 disso-
nance and surface acting dimensions of emotional labor from alternative mea-sures.
Second, we examined relations between the DEELS and Morris and Feldman�s(1997) duration measure to establish discriminant validity. The DEELS assesses fre-
quency of emotional expression and is expected to be relatively independent of du-
ration of interaction.
H4. The DEELS faking and suppression scales will be uncorrelated with Morris
and Feldman�s duration dimension.
Finally, we examined the relationships between the faking and suppression sub-scales and emotional exhaustion to establish the criterion-related validity of the
DEELS. A frequently reported outcome of emotional dissonance is emotional ex-
haustion 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 be-
tween 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 correlatedwith emotional exhaustion.
2. Method
2.1. Procedure and participants
Data were collected from five samples: a graduate student sample and em-ployee samples from four workplace settings—a hotel, a managed healthcare or-
ganization, 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 samplesand confidentiality was assured.
2.1.1. Sample 1
Eighty-nine students enrolled in the Masters in Human Resources or MBA grad-
uate programs at a Midwestern University constituted the student sample. With one
exception, all respondents were either currently employed or had prior work experi-
ence. 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 samplewere obtained from front office, kitchen, housekeep-
ing, 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 ques-
tionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 19%. All but one of the respon-
dents 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, salesper-
sons, and administrative personnel. One hundred and twelve questionnaires were ad-
ministered, 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 organi-
zational tenure was 2.4 years. Average age was 37.2 years, and the sample was com-
posed of 34 women and 10 men.
2.1.4. Sample 4
The data for the fourth sample were obtained from investigators in a large Mid-
western metropolitan police force. One hundred and eighty questionnaires were ad-
ministered, 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 as-
sisted 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 be-cause they were engaged in work tasks.) Sixty-one percent of the sample was em-
ployed 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 Feldman�s (1997) three-itemmeasure and Brotheridge and Lee�s (1998) two-item measure. The Morris and Feld-
man measure includes items such as ‘‘When I work with customers/clients, the way I
act and speak often doesn�t 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 don�t really feel’’ andhas scale anchors ranging from (1) never to (5) always. The respective internal con-
sistency reliabilities were .73 and .86.
2.2.2. Surface acting
Surface acting was measured with Brotheridge and Lee�s (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 Feldman�s (1997) three-item measure assessed duration of emotional
displays. The measure includes items such as ‘‘It�s 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). (Wharton�s original scale
contains six items; however, the item ‘‘I feel I�m 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€ooreskog & S€oorbom,
1993) tested unidimensional, 3-, and 6-factor models using a combined sample (Sam-
ples 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 sub-
scales. The 6-factor model further separated the genuine, faking, and suppressionsubscales 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. Com-
parisons of the fit statistics and Dv2=Ddf tests ½ð1885:44� 918:68Þ=ð816� 804Þ ¼80:56� 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 sup-
pression, 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, andsuppression 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 2499.98 819 3.05 .44 .38 .41 .38 .14 .16
Three-factorb 1885.44 816 2.31 .54 .49 .62 .60 .14 .13
Six-factorc 918.68 804 1.14 .79 .76 .96 .96 .065 .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.
Table 2
Factor loadings and intercorelations from 6-factor confirmatory factor analysis
Genuine Faked Suppressed
Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Contentment .65 .71 .65
Concern .45 .64 .62
Happiness .80 .82 .76
Liking .76 .81 .77
Enthusiasm .78 .83 .81
Disliking .71 .74 .70
Aggravation .76 .72 .76
Fear .50 .62 .69
Anxiety .58 .63 .72
Sadness .47 .70 .73
Irritation .72 .70 .68
Distress .57 .67 .77
Hate .60 .60 .76
Anger .76 .68 .70
Factor intercorrelations
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Genuine positive 1
2. Genuine negative ).04 1
3. Faking positive .23 .18 1
4. Faking negative ).07 .43 .36 1
5. Suppressing positive ).08 .27 .20 .43 1
6. Suppressing negative .02 .23 .45 .24 .58 1
Note. Analyses were run on combined sample n ¼ 421. However, because of the scoring of the sup-
pression 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.
T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23 13
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 reli-
abilities 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
Table 3
Mean group differences
Sample
Assisted living Police
Mean SD Mean SD F p
Genuine positive 3.60 .76 2.85 .73 46.87 .00
Genuine negative 1.71 .47 2.10 .59 18.73 .00
Fake positive 2.11 .92 1.91 .72 3.19 .08
Fake negative 1.13 .30 1.40 .42 24.74 .00
Suppress positive 1.61 .80 1.77 .73 1.79 .18
Suppress negative 2.41 .85 2.49 .79 .42 .52
Assisted living sample, n ¼ 217; police sample, n ¼ 55.
14 T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23
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, ap-
proached 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 ¼24:74, p < :01). No support was obtained for differences in suppressing positiveand 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 con-
vergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity are presented in Table 4 for thecombined 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 signifi-
cantly 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 Lee�s dissonancescale was significantly positively related to the faking positive (r ¼ :43), faking neg-ative (r ¼ :28), suppressing positive (r ¼ :16), and suppressing negative (r ¼ :29) sub-scales. Further, Brotheridge and Lee�s surface acting scale was significantly positivelyrelated 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
Table
4
Descriptivestatistics,acoeffi
cients,andintercorrelationsamongem
otionalexhaustion,DEELS,MorrisandFeldman,andBrotheridgeandLee
emotional
laborscalesforSamples1–4
Mean
SD
12
34
56
78
910
11
1.Emotionalexhaustion
2.77
.95
(.85)
2.Genuinepositive
3.30
.77
).09
(.80)
3.Genuinenegative
2.03
.60
.38�
.14�
(.86)
4.Fakingpositive
2.12
.88
.35�
.22�
.23�
(.87)
5.Fakingnegative
1.29
.44
.17�
.00
.39�
.39�
(.88)
6.Suppressingpositive
1.68
.70
.22�
.04
.23�
.36�
.34�
(.82)
7.Suppressingnegative
2.47
.82
.40�
.10
.22�
.45�
.23�
.59�
(.94)
8.Duration(M
andF)a
2.74
.97
.13
).14
).01
).03
.08
).11
).09
(.78)
9.Dissonance
(MandF)a
2.84
.91
.36�
).34�
.23�
.26�
.21�
.23�
.31�
.12
(.73)
10.Dissonance
(BandL)b
2.49
.92
.30�
).04
.28�
.43�
.28�
.16�
.29�
.11
.52�
(.86)
11.Surface
Acting(B
andL)b
2.66
.85
.40�
).08
.18�
.43�
.22�
.22�
.44�
.01
.56�
.74�
(.87)
Note.acoeffi
cients
appearonthediagonalin
parentheses.Dueto
missingdata
forsomesubscales,combined
sample
size
ranged
from
191to
204.
*p<
:05.
aM
andFdenotesMorrisandFeldman(1997)measures.
bBandLdenotesBrotheridgeandLee
(1998)measures.
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 mea-
sures, supporting Hypothesis 3.
The relationships between the DEELS subscales and Morris and Feldman�s dura-tion dimension were assessed to determine discriminant validity of the DEELS. Sup-
port for Hypothesis 4 was obtained for each of the DEELS subscales; each ofthe 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 sub-
scales and emotional exhaustion. Higher levels of emotional exhaustion were re-
ported 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 relatedto higher levels of emotional exhaustion. Taken together, these bivariate results pro-
vided 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), whereasa 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 anal-
yses showed reasonable support for the six subscales of the DEELS. Although the
DEELS includes 14 discrete emotions, the ability to represent them with six fac-
tors is advantageous to researchers. Nonetheless, these discrete emotions moreclearly 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 dif-
fer in their frequency of genuinely expressing and faking positive and negative emo-
tions in accordance with expectations. Interestingly, no significant differences were
found for suppressing positive and negative emotions. The lack of difference forsuppressing negative emotions is similar to Brotheridge and Grandey�s (2002) find-ing that display rules for hiding negative emotions did not differ across occupa-
tions; suppression of negative emotions may be a universal expectation across
occupations.
Relations between the DEELS and other measures suggested adequate conver-
gent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. The DEELS faking and suppress-
ing 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 consid-
ered in discussions of emotional labor. Given that the items on alternative mea-sures 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 don�t 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 con-
struct space. The lack of relations with the duration dimension offers evidence ofdiscriminant validity.
Relations between the DEELS and emotional exhaustion provided further valida-
tion evidence. The faking positive, faking negative, suppressing positive, and sup-
pressing 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 emo-
tions might be taxing to an individual. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study,
the reverse direction of causality for the emotional expression-emotional exhaustionrelationships 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 interac-
tions between faking and suppressing positive and negative emotions in predicting
emotional exhaustion. For example, faking positive emotions while suppressing neg-
ative 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 occupa-
tions. Future validation attempts should examine additional occupations, particu-
larly 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 withtwo 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 quan-
titative 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 seemsomewhat 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?
I
genuinelyexpress this
many times
a day
I
e
a
a
genuinely
xpress this
few times
day
I
e
a
a
genuinely
xpress this
few times
week
I genuinely
express this
a few times
a month
I never
genuinely
express
this
(1) Irritation
5 4 3 2 1(2) Anxiety
5 4 3 2 1 (3) Contentment 5 4 3 2 1(4) Sadness
5 4 3 2 1(5) Concern
5 4 3 2 1(6) Disliking
5 4 3 2 1(7) Aggravation
5 4 2 1(8) Fear
5 4 3 2 1(9) Happiness
5 4 3 2 1(10) Distress
5 4 3 2 1 (11) Liking 5 4 3 2 1(12) Hate
5 4 3 2 1(13) Anger
5 4 3 2 1(14) Enthusiasm
5 4 3 2 1T.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 whenyou 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 thismany times
a day when
I do not feel it
I express thisa few times
a day when
I do not feel it
Ia
a
I
express thisfew times
week when
do not feel it
I express thisa few times
a month when
I do not feel it
I neverexpress this
when I do
not feel it
5
4 3 2 1A.3. Keeping emotions to yourself
In this section, we would like to know about emotions you do not express on thejob 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
I keep this to
myself a few
times a day
I keep this to
myself a few
times a week
I keep this to
myself a few
times a month
I never
keep this
to myself
I
never
feel
this
5 4 3 2 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.
Appendix
B
Descriptivestatistics,acoeffi
cients,andintercorrelationsamongem
otionalexhaustion,DEELS,MorrisandFeldman,andBrotheridgeandLee
Emotional
20 T.M. Glomb, M.J. Tews / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 1–23
LaborScalesforSamples1–4
Mean
SD
12
34
56
78
910
11
1.Emotional
exhaustion
2.80a
.82
(.77)
2.94b
1.12
(.90)
2.55c
1.01
(.89)
2.84d
1.04
(.90)
2.Genuine
positive
3.72
.57
).19
(.68)
3.57
.66
).10
(.66)
2.92
.70
).09
(.68)
2.85
.73
).15
(.82)
3.Genuine
negative
2.09
.57
.32�
).02
(.88)
2.02
.77
.47�
.13
(.87)
1.83
.56
.35�
.11
(.83)
2.10
.59
.41�
.30�
(.87)
4.Faking
positive
2.43
.80
.28�
.16
.26�
(.86)
2.26
1.18
.49�
.05
.02
(.89)
1.71
.87
.38�
.07
.17
(.87)
1.91
.72
.35�
).11
.28�
(.82)
5.Faking
negative
1.30
.44
.19
.01
.38�
.33�
(.89)
1.32
.64
.19
.00
.57�
.41
(.95)
1.12
.26
.13
).02
.17
.38�
(.82)
1.40
.42
.10
).03
.32�
.56�
(.79)
6.Suppressing
positive
1.68
.59
.31�
).01
.35�
.26�
.27�
(.78)
1.93
.92
.52�
.12
.37
.44
.57�
(.90)
1.47
.72
.01
.28
).09
.42�
.16
(.76)
1.77
.73
.11
).17
.18
.41�
.34�
(.82)
7.Suppressing
negative
2.53
.69
.30�
.13
.27�
.35�
.20
.57�
(.92)
2.57
1.02
.64�
.27
.29
.64�
.35
.66�
(.92)
2.30
.98
.33�
.09
.00
.40�
).10
.52�
(.97)
2.49
.79
.44�
).10
.29�
.54�
.37�
.62�
(.93)
8.Duration
(MandF)e
2.57
.90
.16
.20
.03
.11
.11
).18
).15
(.72)
1.88
.87
).13
.14
).06
).34
).07
).10
).19
(.83)
2.59
.84
.23
).39�
).07
.06
.09
).06
).11
(.72)
3.39
.79
.21
.03
).10
.16
).06
).13
.03
(.72)
9.Dissonance
(MandF)e
2.48
.68
.31�
).27�
.35�
.32�
.09
.19
.33�
).01
(.66)
3.09
1.21
.46�
).37
).07
.45
.13
.33
.35
).33
(.82)
2.75
.74
.31
.04
.37�
.31
.07
.12
.25
).05
(.55)
3.34
.95
.42�
).31�
.30�
.53�
.39�
.20
.40�
.21
(.66)
10.Dissonance
(BandL)f
2.58
.72
.21
).12
.24�
.32�
.11
.22�
.21
).06
.36�
(.75)
2.37
1.04
.13
).18
).28
.35
.05
.05
.12
.11
.56�
(.80)
1.88
.82
.38�
).04
.37�
.58�
.13
.07
.27
).08
.55�
(.81)
2.87
1.00
.35�
).06
.40�
.58�
.51�
.07
.45�
.09
.64�
(.92)
11.Surface
acting
(BandL)f
2.65
.62
.36�
).20
.06
.25�
.05
.21
.28�
).13
.50�
.55�
(.79)
2.82
1.01
.36
).11
).33
.57�
).06
.08
.28
).27
.55�
.68�
(.84)
2.16
.86
.36�
.02
.33�
.51�
.08
.12
.45�
).16
.49�
.69�
(.91)
3.02
.93
.44�
).14
.31�
.61�
.44�
.23
.66�
.09
.63�
.84�
(.89)
Note.acoeffi
cients
appearonthediagonalin
parentheses.
aThefirstlinerepresents
Sample
1(Student)statistics;n¼
86.
bThesecondlinerepresents
Sample
2(H
otel)statistics;n¼
19.
cThethirdlinerepresents
Sample
3(M
anaged
care)statistics;n¼
44.
dThefourthlinerepresents
Sample
4(Police)statistics;n¼
55.
eM
andF
denotesMorrisandFeldman(1997)measures.
fB
andL
denotesBrotheridgeandLee
(1998)measures.
*p<
:05.
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€ooreskog, K. G., & S€oorbom, 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 Hochschild�swork. 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 don�t. 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 well-
being. 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., & O�Connor, 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: Detectives� encounters withcriminals 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 ofManagement
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.