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

mail to: [email protected]

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


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.


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.’’


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%


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.



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,


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.


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
genuinely
express 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 1


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 1
A.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


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.



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.


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.

Glomb, Tews - Emotional Labor a Reconceptualization

Documents

internal consistency reliabilities

internal consistency reliability

scale anchors ranging

tews journal

external behavioral displays

occupational health psychology

assisted living employees

factor solution distinguishes