This article was downloaded by: [University of Barcelona]On: 19 February 2012, At: 06:13Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales RegisteredNumber: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journalof Work andOrganizationalPsychologyPublication details, includinginstructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Emotion Work as aSource of Stress:The Concept andDevelopment of anInstrumentDieter Zapf, Christoph Vogt, ClaudiaSeifert, Heidrun Mertini & Amela Isic

Available online: 10 Sep 2010

To cite this article: Dieter Zapf, Christoph Vogt, Claudia Seifert,Heidrun Mertini & Amela Isic (1999): Emotion Work as a Source ofStress: The Concept and Development of an Instrument, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8:3, 371-400

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943299398230

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or impliedor make any representation that the contents will be completeor accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions,formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified withprimary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 371

© 1999 Psychology Press Ltd

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1999, 8 (3), 371–400

Requests for reprints should be addressed to D. Zapf, Department of Psychology, J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt, Mertonstr. 17, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany. Email: D.Zapf@psych.uni-frankfurt.de.

The hotel study was supported by the Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrung. Special thanks are due toP. Bärenz and A. Landgraf.

Emotion Work as a Source of Stress:The Concept and Development of an Instrument

Dieter Zapf, Christoph Vogt, Claudia Seifert, Heidrun Mertini,and Amela Isic

J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany

This article discussed emotion work as a neglected area in organizational stressresearch. Emotion work (emotional labour) was defined as the emotionalregulation required of the employees in the display of organizationally desiredemotions. Based on the existing literature on emotion work and action theory,emotional regulation requirements (sub-scales: the requirement to express positiveemotions; the requirement to express and handle negative emotions, therequirement to be sensitive to clients’ emotions, and the requirement to showsympathy), emotional regulation possibilities (control), and emotional regulationproblems (emotional dissonance) were differentiated. Questionnaires weredeveloped and applied in a sample of employees in a handicapped children’s home(N = 83), in the hotel business (N = 175) and employees working in call-centres(N = 250). Scales showed satisfactory reliabilities. Exploratory and confirmatoryfactor analyses revealed minor problems with discriminant validity of the scales.Construct validation showed that the emotion work scales were both positively andnegatively related with psychological health.

Psychological stress research in organizations comprises a substantial body ofresearch spanning the last 20 years, and demonstrating significant relationsbetween psychological stressors and strains. In 1989 the European Councilpassed various laws to improve the protection of workers’ health and promotemeasures of health and well-being. In many European countries, these laws stillhave to be translated into national law. In Germany, this was achieved in 1996 bypassing a new law for occupational health and safety (“Arbeitsschutzgesetz”).The new law addressed physical stressors such as carrying heavy weights or one-sided and unusual body positions, environmental stressors such as noise ortemperature, which have been investigated in the human factors literature, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

372 ZAPF ET AL.

psychological stressors. Although the former were explicitly mentioned, theaspects these psychological stressors should comprise were not. Most studies onpsychological stressors at work measure stressors that are related to the worktasks and to the organization of work (cf. Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Zapf,Dormann, & Frese, 1996). Typical examples are quantitative and qualitativeoverload or time pressure. There are only a few approaches that try to systematizepsychological job stressors based on a general framework. The most prominentapproaches use role theory to link different role demands such as role conflict,role ambiguity and role overload to psychological stress (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Another approach is the differentiation of jobstressors according to their effect on action regulation (Frese & Zapf, 1994;Greiner & Leitner, 1989; Semmer, 1984; Semmer, Zapf, & Dunckel, 1995, 1999;Zapf, 1993). Basically, these stressors are of a cognitive nature, that is, workingconditions are considered to be stressful because they negatively affect variousaspects of information processing during task execution and because they requiremental effort. Examples are time pressure, interruptions, concentrationnecessities or uncertainty at work. Another perspective examines psychologicalstressors associated with social relations at work. Scales addressing socialstressors (Frese & Zapf, 1987) or interpersonal conflict scales (Spector, 1987)measure conflicts, animosities, verbal aggression and unjust behaviour at work.The theories underlying these kinds of stressors typically relate to conflict andaggression.

Burnout is yet another research area that points to job requirements notincluded in the concepts of psychological job stressors mentioned so far. Burnoutwas first investigated in the helping professions (Maslach, 1982; Maslach &Leiter, 1997; Schaufeli & Buunk, 1996; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998; Schaufeli,Maslach, & Marek, 1993). It is argued that the personal relationships withpatients, clients, or children are very demanding and require a high amount ofempathy and emotional involvement. This is usually combined with a highaspiration level to build up personal relationships and avoid treating other peoplelike objects. In these professions, the management of emotions is considered acentral part of work. Burnout is then an indication that employees are no longerable to adequately manage their emotions when interacting with clients. It is asyndrome consisting of three aspects: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1986). It is arguedthat, in the long run, burnout leads to psychosomatic complaints, depression, andother long-term stress effects. A recent meta-analysis (Lee & Ashforth, 1996) ofthe existing literature found role stress to be one of the best predictors of burnoutvariables. Interestingly, studies on burnout did not try to directly measure theemotional aspects at work. Rather, these aspects were taken as a given by doingresearch with samples where emotional job requirements could be taken forgranted. Instead, various job stressors, such as role conflict, role ambiguity, timepressure, and lack of job control were measured.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 373

It is only recently that authors tried to investigate the relationships betweenmore direct measures of emotional aspects at work and psychological strain (e.g.Abraham, 1998; Adelmann, 1995; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998;Morris & Feldman, 1997). These authors referred to the concept of emotionallabour introduced by Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983). This concept refers to thequality of interactions between employees and clients. The term “clients” is usedto refer to any person who interacts with an employee, for example, clients,patients, children, customers, or guests. During face-to-face interactions withclients many employees are required to express appropriate emotions as a jobrequirement, for example, waiters or flight attendants are required to be friendlyeven to arrogant or aggressive customers. Hochschild drew upon the work ofGoffman (1959) to argue that people in social interactions tend to play roles andtry to create certain impressions. Impressions include the display of normativelyappropriate emotions following certain display rules. In this respect, Morris andFeldman (1996, p. 987) defined emotional labour as the “effort, planning, andcontrol needed to express organizationally desired emotions during interpersonaltransactions”.

It was our intention to investigate whether job requirements that refer to theregulation of emotions could supplement the concepts of psychological jobstressors mentioned previously that refer to the regulation of cognition orinformation processing. Hochschild, as a sociologist, differentiated betweenemotional labour as the exchange value of work and emotional work as the usevalue. In the present context, the psychological processes, for example, theregulation processes of work actions rather than societal and economic aspects oflabour are considered. In psychology, the term “labour” is used to describe thedivision of labour, labour–management relations, conflict resolution, andcollective bargaining. The term is not used when individual behaviour andintrapsychic concepts are involved as in the concepts of physical and mentalwork demands, work motivation, work involvement, work design, etc. To becompatible with these research areas, the term “emotion work” is preferred. Insum, emotion work possesses the following characteristics (Hochschild, 1983;Morris & Feldman, 1997): (1) It is a significant component of jobs that requireeither face-to-face or voice-to voice interactions with clients. This refers to theservice sector, in particular human services, but also to teachers, police,correctional workers, debt collectors, and others. It should be noted that not alljobs that require face-to-face interactions with clients belong to the service sectorand that defining service is problematic (Nerdinger, 1994). We will use the term“person-related work” as an umbrella term for all jobs that require face-to-face orvoice-to-voice interactions with clients. (2) Emotions in these jobs are displayedto influence other people’s attitudes and behaviours, usually by influencing theiremotional state. For example, a child nurse may show sympathy and talk to a hurtchild in a soft calming voice to make the child stop crying and cheer her up.(3) The display of emotions has to follow certain rules. At present, many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

374 ZAPF ET AL.

companies do not have explicit display rules as a part of the organizationalculture or as part of their job descriptions, in particular not in Continental Europe.However, mission statements of companies sometimes incorporate display rulesand there may be implicit display rules taught in one’s occupational education oras part of one’s professional ethos, for example, in the case of a nurse (Briner,1995). In other cases, it may be the professional experience that you can’t sellanything if you are not polite, friendly, and helpful. Employers differ in theirattempts to control and direct how employees display emotions to clients. Insome cases, it is part of the supervisors’ jobs to take care that display rules areobserved. Increasingly, companies ask customers to evaluate whether they weretreated in a friendly manner.

A number of studies operationalized emotion work as a dichotomous variableindicating the presence or absence of emotion work in an occupation(Hochschild, 1983; Wharton, 1993). Hochschild suggested that emotion workdepends on the frequency of interpersonal contact between employee and client,thus conceiving emotion work as an unidimensional construct negativelycorrelated with employees’ health. Accordingly, some authors (e.g. Adelmann,1995) operationalized one scale for emotion work. However, these studies couldnot find the expected negative relations between emotion work and psychologicalstrain, suggesting that more differentiated concepts should be used.

Other authors have worked on the differentiation of various aspects ofemotion work, many of them referring to the seminal work of Morris andFeldman (1996). Some started with Hochschild’s (1983) concept of emotionmanagement to differentiate various dimensions of emotion work (e.g. Grandy,1998; Kruml & Geddes, 1998). Other authors focused on determinants ofemotion work in the sense of “objective” job requirements: This emphasizes thatit is not in the discretion of the employee whether or not to express certainemotions in a job. Rather, independent of a particular worker, it is required by theorganization and may be an explicit or implicit rule.

Approaches referring to the concept of emotion management differentiated itbased on how emotion work is done. One aspect differentiates between surfaceacting and deep acting. Based on Goffman (1959), Hochschild (1983) argued thatindividuals permanently manage their outer demeanour to conform withsituational requirements. Most emotion theorists propose that emotions consistof several sub-systems (see Scherer, 1997): subjective feeling, physiologicalreaction patterns, and expressive behaviour, the latter including facialexpression, voice and gesture. With reference to these concepts, surface actingmeans that employees try to manage the visible aspects of emotions that appearon the “surface” to bring them in line with the organizational display rules, whilethe inner feelings remain unchanged. Another concept of Hochschild is “activedeep acting” when individuals try to influence what they feel in order to“become” the role they are asked to display. In this case, not only the expressivebehaviour but also the inner feelings are regulated. Active deep acting refers to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 375

the case where an employee has to spend effort to regulate emotions. In othercases, an employee may automatically feel the emotion required in a particularsituation. Hochschild called such forms “passive deep acting”.

Most studies of emotion work include the concept of emotional dissonance(e.g. Abraham, 1998; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998; Morris &Feldman, 1996, 1997). Emotional dissonance occurs when an employee isrequired to express emotions that are not genuinely felt in the particular situation.A person may feel nothing when a certain emotion display is required, or thedisplay rule may require the suppression of undesired emotions and theexpression of neutrality or a positive emotion instead of a negative one.Emotional dissonance may originate from “faking in good faith” when theemployee accepts the underlying display rule or from “faking in bad faith” whenthe feeling rule is not accepted (Hochschild. 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987).Various authors (e.g. Abraham, 1998; Adelmann, 1995) propose that faking inbad faith has the most negative consequences.

Based on this, Grandey (1998) and Kruml and Geddes (1998) identified twodimensions: emotional dissonance and emotional effort. Emotional dissonancerefers to Hochschild’s concept of surface acting and passive deep acting(automatic emotion regulation), which are considered to be the opposite ends of acontinuum. If an employee spontaneously feels the emotion, emotionaldissonance is low; if he or she feels nothing or the opposite emotion, emotionaldissonance is high. Emotional effort refers to the degree to which employeesactively try to change their inner feelings to match the feelings they are expectedto express. According to Kruml and Geddes, this dimension incorporatesHochschild’s (1983) active deep acting. Both dimensions showed a highcorrelation in the studies of Grandey.

In conceptualizing emotion work as the behavioural response to variations inthe frequency, variety, intensity, and duration of interactions, Brotheridge andLee (1998, p. 7) used the term “emotional labour” to refer to “actions undertakenas a means of addressing role demands”. In this sense, operationalizations ofemotion work come close to the concept of coping in stress research (Lazarus &Folkman,1984; Semmer, 1996). The authors operationalized surface acting anddeep acting as the key constructs for emotion work. Deep acting refers to theactive attempts to align one’s felt and displayed emotion, which means that theinner feelings have to be adapted to the emotions that have to be displayed. Incontrast, surface acting means pretending to have the emotions expected to bedisplayed. In this case, employees do not try to feel the emotions they have todisplay. Brotheridge and Lee considered surface acting as the manifestation andeven a proxy for emotional dissonance.

Morris and Feldman (1996) concentrated on what they called dimensions ofemotion work: the frequency of emotion display, the attentiveness to displayrules required (referring to the intensity and duration of emotion display), thevariety of emotions to be expressed, and emotional dissonance. They argued that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

376 ZAPF ET AL.

all these dimensions of emotion work would increase emotional exhaustion, thecore variable of burnout.

To conclude: Most authors consider the frequency, variety, duration, andattentiveness of emotions as dimensions of emotion work. Emotional dissonanceis viewed somewhat differently. Several authors consider it to be a result of thedeterminants of emotion work (e.g. Adelmann, 1995); some authors even place itclose to the dependent variables (e.g. Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). However,there is some agreement to define emotional dissonance as the discrepancybetween displayed and felt emotions (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Morris &Feldman, 1996, 1997) and to consider it as one of the key predictors of emotionalexhaustion. Brotheridge and Lee (1998) proposed that the emotionalrequirements at work do not directly lead to emotional exhaustion but may do sothrough their relation with emotional dissonance.

Several attempts have been made to operationalize aspects of emotion work.Morris and Feldman (1997) operationalized three aspects of emotion work: thefrequency of emotion work, the duration of emotion work, and emotionaldissonance. For the frequency and duration scales they did not directly refer toemotion display but referred to the frequency and time interacting with clients,whereas emotional dissonance items directly referred to the match betweendisplayed behaviour and felt emotions. Brotheridge and Lee (1998) and Grandey(1998) followed the model proposed by Morris and Feldman (1996) andoperationalized scales for the dimensions of emotion work as frequency, variety,attentiveness, and duration (single item), and emotional dissonance, surfaceacting, and deep acting as the core variables of emotion work. In the first study ofBrotheridge and Lee (1998), a factor analysis produced four factors collapsingemotional dissonance and surface acting into one factor, and intensity, variety,and duration into another. The two other factors were deep acting and frequencyof emotional display. In a second study, the authors were able to distinguishfrequency, variety, intensity, and duration, and surface acting and deep acting.

Best, Downey, and Jones (1997) measured how often different emotions wereexpected on the job. Using factor analyses, they found three factors representingthe expression of positive emotions, suppressing negative emotions andexpressing negative emotions, whereby the latter showed a low reliability and alow response frequency. Abraham (1998) operationalized emotional dissonanceusing items from Adelmann (1995) that referred to display rules in theorganization. She then developed identical items rephrased to reflect the degreeto which the respondents would actually show the corresponding emotions.Difference scores of the respective items were then computed to reflectemotional dissonance.

For the present studies we combined the literature on emotion work describedpreviously with action theory-based approaches in stress research (Frese & Zapf,1994; Greiner & Leitner, 1989; Zapf, 1993). “Work” or “labour” is amultidisciplinary concept. Hacker (1973, 1998) and Volpert (1974) argued that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 377

the psychological component of work is the work activity and from theperspective of action theory it is the psychic regulation of work actions. Throughvarious cognitive processes, action theory links the objective work environmentto behaviour. To describe job requirements, three aspects are distinguished: theregulation requirements of a task, regulation possibilities, and regulationproblems (for details, see Frese & Zapf, 1994; Zapf, 1993).

From an action-oriented perspective, regulation requirements are related toproperties of the hierarchic-sequential organization of action and comprise thecomplexity of decisions, the number and connectedness of goals and sub-goals,and the extent of conscious vs. automatic regulation processes. Regulationpossibilities refer to the concept of control. Control means having an impact onone’s conditions and on one’s activities in correspondence with some goal.Decision possibilities exist with regard to the sequence of the action steps, thetimeframe, and the content of goals and plans (Frese, 1987). Several authors haveoperationalized various aspects of control, such as task control referring todecision possibilities regarding the goals to be carried out, the sequence of plansto be performed, and the sequence of feedback information processing. Timecontrol, for example, refers to both when and for how long a certain task isperformed (e.g. Frese & Zapf, 1994, Semmer, et al. 1995; Wall, Jackson,Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996; Zapf, 1993). Regulation problems are an actiontheory conceptualization of work stressors. The stressors are differentiatedaccording to how they disturb the regulation of actions (Frese & Zapf, 1994;Greiner & Leitner, 1989; Semmer, 1984).

There is evidence that regulation requirements, regulation possibilities, andregulation problems are differentially related to health and well-being and thatthis differentiation helps to overcome a stimulus-response framework whereevery characteristic of the job has negative consequences and where “doingnothing” would be the best concept to avoid stress at work. In contrast, actiontheory proposes that human beings usually try to actively cope with theirenvironment. In this sense, job design should support this active approach byproviding challenging (i.e. sufficiently complex) tasks (regulation requirements)and control (regulation possibilities), but at the same time, reducing the stressors(regulation problems). Regulation requirements are relevant to the concept ofpersonality enhancement (Hacker, 1973, 1998; see also Frese & Zapf, 1994).This means that they enable one to develop cognitive and social skills, and furthersatisfaction and self-esteem. They follow the person–environment fit model(Edwards & van Harrison, 1993): They are positive as long as they are matchedby personal prerequisites and they become negative when they exceed them.Research shows that regulation possibilities (control) typically show a directpositive effect as well as a moderating effect between stressors and strains (e.g.Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). In contrast, regulation problems (stressors) havenegative health effects. Stressors are in a sense independent of the person–environment fit, because people want challenging tasks, but they do not need a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

378 ZAPF ET AL.

minimal amount of conflicts, time pressure or superfluous organizationalproblems to feel happy.

Using an action theory framework, the psychological focus of the presentstudy was on the regulation of emotion display according to a goal given by theorganization. In this sense, emotion work is part of intentional and goal-directedbehaviour. From the organization, an employee receives an order to carry out acertain task in a certain way. This includes behaving according to the emotionaldisplay rules of the organization. The order is then redefined into a subjectivegoal (Hackman, 1970). Emotion work usually refers to a sub-goal of a higherorder goal and requires certain emotion display during an interaction with aclient. Ideally, emotion work is done in the automatic mode, that is, the emotionis automatically shown in the social interaction as required (cf. Scherer &Wallbott, 1990). In this sense, the concept of emotion work differs fromapproaches that investigate emotions as a response to a variety of organizationalconditions (e.g. Basch & Fisher, 1998).

Emotion work poses various demands on the worker. This view considers thejob requirement aspects of emotion work and is congruent with the idea thatobjective job characteristics or job stressors created by the organization affect theworkers in various ways (Frese & Zapf, 1988, 1994; Spector, 1992). Thisapproach conforms to the behaviour requirement approach in job analysisresearch (Hackman, 1970). Because our goal was to develop an instrument thatshould be used in addition to other instruments in the analysis of stress at work,we did not intend to operationalize all aspects of emotion work separately, but weused these concepts for the development of items. However, because of theempirical findings of Best et al. (1997), Brotheridge and Lee (1998), andGrandey (1998) we expected that the items of emotional requirements wouldrepresent at least two factors, namely the frequency and the variety/intensity ofemotion work. We did not model the duration aspect. The reason is that theemotion work components were developed in the context of stress researchwhere the frequency of emotion work seems to be most relevant. If intensity onlyis measured there should not necessarily be a strong relation with variables suchas burnout, because the more intense emotions could be more seldom. Similarly,if variety of emotions is measured, the problem occurs that a high variety ingeneral might be more stressful than a low variety but it may not occur very often.In the present study we partly tried to circumvent this problem by asking, forexample, how often both positive and negative emotions have to be displayed.

In addition to the work of Hochschild (1983), we drew upon concepts ofemotion work that put the influence and management of clients’ emotions intothe foreground (e.g. Brucks, 1998; Strauss, Farahaugh, Suczek, & Wiener, 1980;Strazdins, 1998). To be able to manage clients emotions, the accurate perceptionof the clients’ emotions is an important prerequisite. This is also in accord withcommunication psychology (Riggio, 1986) and the literature on emotionalintelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1998). Riggio operationalized basic social skills

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 379

that are related to the regulation of emotions and differentiated sensitivity,expression, and control of emotions. Expression and control refer to theemotional requirements described previously. In addition, we operationalized“sensitivity requirements” as the necessity to be sensitive and consider theemotions of clients. It can be expected that sensitivity requirements are positivelycorrelated with emotional requirements because the expression of an emotionduring an interaction usually is dependent on the emotion of the interactionpartner. Only in short script-like interactions might a person express emotionswithout trying to sense the emotion of others.

In his qualitative study on supermarket clerks’ performance, Tolich (1993)argued that the presence or absence of control over one’s emotion display is oneof the important issues of emotion work. He differentiated regulated emotionmanagement from autonomous emotion management. Referring to the dif-ferentiation of various aspects of job control (regulation possibilities) mentionedearlier, emotion work control was operationalized as a special case of job controlwith regard to the display of emotions (in the sense of Tolich’s autonomousemotion management) and interaction control as a special case with regard to theunderlying social interactions where emotions have to be displayed. Emotionwork control refers to the extent to which an employee can decide whether or notto show a desired emotion. Emotion work control is probably lower when displayrules have been made explicit in an organization, but this should not benecessarily so. Waitresses in restaurants may have to follow certain display rules,but there may be differences in how often and in what cases the waitresses areempowered to deviate from the rules. As described previously, some authorshave operationalized emotion work by operationalizing aspects of the underlyingsocial situation (e.g Adelmann, 1995; Morris & Feldman, 1997). In a similar waywe operationalized the control of the social interaction, that is the degree ofinfluence an employee has in social interactions with clients. An example iswhether an employee can decide when to stop an interaction with a client. Thereare several reasons why we included the concepts of emotion work control andinteraction control. First, they are part of the action theory framework we appliedto emotion work. Second, qualitative research done by Hochschild (1983),Rafaeli (1989) and Tolich (1993) pointed to the importance of this concept.Third, the study of Erickson (1991, cited in Abraham, 1998) showed someevidence that the moderating effect of job control applied when emotionaldissonance is involved and that this effect might be even stronger when thecontrol concept is matched to the stressor (cf. the analogy of the match-hypothesis of stressors and social support of Cohen & Wills, 1985).

Finally, emotional dissonance was considered as an emotion regulationproblem. As in most of the other approaches, it is defined as the mismatchbetween felt emotions and the organizationally desired expression of theseemotions. We considered emotional dissonance as an external demand ratherthan a reaction to emotion display or a behavioural strategy. One could argue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

380 ZAPF ET AL.

that, given a certain requirement for frequency and content (positive or negativeemotion), it should then depend on the employee and his or her personality towhat extent he or she feels in line with the required emotions. In this sense,emotional dissonance would be a stress reaction and a first sign of emotionalexhaustion. However, there are qualitative differences in social situations that arenot sufficiently described by the parameters for display rules. This is because thedisplay rules describe the desired state of emotion display, but they do notcomprise anything about how often individuals are exposed to situations wherethey have to show the required emotions. Moreover, they do not reflect otherfactors, namely how positive or negative the social interaction is, which mayinfluence what people feel and whether this fits to the emotion required by thedisplay rule for this particular situation. Compare, for example, a nurse in achildren’s hospital and a nurse in a retirement home. The display rules ofshowing friendliness and empathy may be the same, and frequency and durationof interactions may be similar, leading to similar required display rates ofpositive emotions, but the nurse in the retirement home may encounter manymore situations where an average person feels disgust or anger. Similarly,cashiers of a supermarket chain may all have the same requirements to displaypositive emotions to customers, and the number of customers determining thefrequency of emotional requirements may be similar. However, depending onwhere a supermarket is located, there may be differing frequencies of encounterswith complaining or otherwise negatively behaving customers, which is a goodpredictor of negative emotions of the employee (Doucet, 1998). Consequently,the number of situations where gaps between felt and desired emotions appearmay differ considerably. The discrepancy between what an average person islikely to feel and what the respective display rule is, varies from situation tosituation. Therefore, the aspects covered by the concept of emotional dissonanceare not covered by the frequency and other parameters of emotional requirementsbecause they all refer to the display rules and to more formal characteristics ofsocial interaction, such as frequency and duration, and not to the quality of theactual situations and the resulting differing discrepancies between display rulesand average emotions in a given situation.

Two more issues should be mentioned with regard to emotional dissonance.First, some authors focus on the display of emotions required by the organization,no matter what a person feels (e.g. Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Display ofemotion refers to facial expression, bodily behaviour, and voice. These are thevisible aspects of the emotional system (Scherer, 1997; Scherer & Wallbott,1990). If this is so, could then the display of emotions not be described bysensorimotor processes? The regulation of sensorimotor processes is, forexample, a part of the action theory approach mentioned previously (Frese &Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1998). According to action theory, sensorimotor processesare highly automatized. They are usually carried out in the automatic mode, that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 381

is, without conscious attention. This is also so with respect to the sensorimotorprocesses in the expression of emotion (Ekman, 1984; Izard, 1977; Scherer &Wallbott, 1990). If a certain emotion is felt, then the expression of this emotionautomatically occurs whereby social competence may play a moderator role. Ifan emotion that has to be displayed, is not felt, then problems occur. In highlystandardized situations it may be easy to fake. If this is not the case, then the truefeelings may show through and may be recognized by other people (cf. Ekman &Friesen, 1982 who investigated the differences between true and faked smiling).In some cases, authenticity, that is not faking, may even be a key variable, forexample, for therapists in encounter therapy (Rogers, 1951). Hochschild (1983)also raised the problems of surface acting and discussed that even in servicessuch as airlines deep acting is required. Employees are required to feel theemotions they should feel because otherwise there is the danger that it would notwork. Findings in social psychology showed that people can sometimes tell whensomeone is faking a friendly face (Ekman & Friesen, 1982). Therefore,emotional dissonance as a job stressor should lead to both surface acting and deepacting as a reaction, implying that emotion work cannot be reduced to thesensorimotor regulation of emotional expression. This also shows the differencebetween emotional dissonance as a stressor and as a reaction. If deep acting wassuccessful there is no internal state of emotional dissonance (emotionaldissonance as a reaction or dimension of emotion work). However, deep actingcan be a strategy to deal with the job stressor of emotional dissonance.

Finally, emotional dissonance has to be discussed with reference to thedifferentiation of use value and exchange value of work (Hochschild, 1983;Marx, 1867/1977; Nerdinger, 1994). Hochschild (1983), who coined the term“emotional labour”, pointed out that “emotional labour is sold for a wage andtherefore has exchange value” (p. 7). Nerdinger discussed in detail that, from theeconomic point of view, the work of the service provider is exchanged formoney. However, in many cases the full service requires an interaction as if therewere not an economic but a family-like relation. A therapist is expected to betruly interested in the client and not just because he or she is paid for it. Similarly,parents know that child nursing is a job and that the nurses work for money.Nevertheless they wish that the nurses really love their children. Nerdingerpointed out that the social interaction is not only a means to deliver the service butis part of the service product. Thus, a service employee may face contradictoryexpectations given by the personal interaction with the client (who, for example,may want advice) and the economic interests of his or her employer (who mayinsist on high sales). Moreover, the requirements of the organization itself maybe ambiguous. A computer hot-liner may be required to be customer friendly,but, at the same time limit talks with customers to 5 minutes. One canhypothesize that such contradictory job requirements are a source of emotionaldissonance in any kind of person-related work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

382 ZAPF ET AL.

In sum, applying the concept of action theory to emotion work first leads tointegrating the special control concepts described earlier. Second, it helps tounderstand that emotion work is not necessarily negative but has also positiveimplications. To explore the construct validity of the instruments developed forthe present studies, we developed several hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Emotion work is a multidimensionalconstruct

Within emotion work, emotional requirements, emotion control, and emotionaldissonance can be distinguished. The differences in these concepts have beendescribed previously. Empirically, this hypothesis is supported by most findingsin the literature so far with regard to emotional requirements and emotionaldissonance (e.g. Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998; Morris & Feldman,1997). We are not aware of studies that operationalized a concept equivalent toemotion work control or interaction control. Also, the fact that studies that didnot differentiate between various aspects of emotion work did not find theexpected results (Adelmann, 1995), supports the view that emotion work is not ahomogeneous construct.

Hypothesis 2(a): Emotional requirement scales are positivelycorrelated

It is expected that the various aspects of emotional requirements are highlycorrelated, whereas emotional requirements and emotional dissonance shouldshow a positive but lower correlation. The reason is that all emotionalrequirements are a function of the interaction time with clients and the existenceof display rules. In contrast to Morris and Feldman (1996), most of the items ofthe present study have a frequency component. The more interactions a personhas with a client, the more this person is supposed to show positive and negativeemotions. In addition, the sensitivity requirements should also be high.Sensitivity requirements should be positively correlated with the other scalesbecause the expression of emotion should in most cases be dependent on theemotions of the interaction partner,which have to be adequately perceived.

Hypothesis 2(b): Emotional requirement scales are alsopositively correlated with emotional dissonance

The frequency of emotional dissonance also depends on the frequency ofinteractions. Therefore, emotional dissonance should be positively correlatedwith the emotional requirement scales. However, because emotional dissonanceis also a function of how pleasant or unpleasant the social interactions are, thecorrelations are expected to be lower than the correlations amongst the emotionalrequirement scales, which all mainly depend on the interaction frequency. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 383

addition, Morris and Feldman (1996) proposed that the higher the frequency ofemotion display, the higher is the chance that emotions have to be displayed thatdo not fit the emotions felt. A similar argument applies for the variety ofemotions. For variety of emotions it can be added that it is more likely thatemployees have problems with negative emotions compared to positiveemotions. With regard to the correlation between emotional requirementvariables and emotional dissonance, the empirical findings are mixed. Grandey(1998) found a correlation between suppressing negative emotions andemotional dissonance, but not between expressing positive emotions andemotional dissonance. Also, Brotheridge and Lee (1998) found a correlationbetween frequency of emotion display and emotional dissonance.

Hypothesis 2(c): Emotion control is negatively related withemotional dissonance

There is evidence in the stress literature that control is negatively related to jobstressors. Abraham (1998) was able to demonstrate such a relationship for jobautonomy and emotional dissonance. This negative relation should also occur forspecific control measures such as emotion work control and interaction control,especially if the specific control variables match the specific kinds of stressors,which should be the case in the present study.

Hypothesis 3: There are both positive and negativerelations between emotional requirements and strainand well-being

Much of the literature addressed the negative effects of emotion work (e.gAdelmann, 1995; Hochschild, 1983). Most often scholars cited the negativerelations with burnout, hypothesizing that emotion work would increaseemotional exhaustion and depersonalization and would reduce personalaccomplishment. Some authors discussed relationships with poor self-esteemand depression. Hochschild, in particular, referred to the problem of alienationfrom one’s true feelings. A few authors, however, also referred to potentialpositive effects such as job satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (e.g.Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Stenross & Kleinman,1989; Tolich, 1993; Wharton, 1993).

Drawing parallels with action theory-based concepts of work characteristics(Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1998), it can be assumed that work in general is noteither positive or negative. Rather, a challenging job may comprise positive jobcontent variables such as job control, complexity, or variety at work, butchallenging jobs often go along with high quantitative workload and uncertaintyat work. Similarly, it is not assumed that emotion work is generally eithernegative or positive. On the one hand, emotion work is laborious and effortful.Therefore, if a high frequency of emotional display and a variety of emotions are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

384 ZAPF ET AL.

required this should lead to psychological strain, especially to emotionalexhaustion (Morris & Feldman, 1996). When emotional requirements exceedcertain limits the likelihood increases that the emotions that have to be expresseddo not match the emotions that are felt at that moment. That is, in line with theperson–environment fit model (e.g. Edwards & van Harrison, 1993), if emotionalrequirements are frequent and last for a long time, their effects on well-beingshould be negative. This assumption is supported by findings in the burnoutliterature. Maslach (1982) stated that frequent, intense, and charging face-to-faceinteractions were associated with higher levels of emotional exhaustion. Cordesand Dougherty (1993) in their review reported that longer interactions withclients were associated with higher levels of burnout. Morris and Feldman (1997)considered emotional exhaustion as the key consequence of emotion work.Reviewing the empirical literature, however, shows that the expected correla-tions between emotional requirements and emotional exhaustion were often not(Adelmann, 1995; Morris & Feldman, 1997) or only occasionally found(Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998). For Morris and Feldman, this may bedue to the fact that they did not directly refer to the frequency or duration ofemotional display but to the underlying social interaction. Although empiricalfindings are mixed here, it is assumed that variables representing emotionalrequirements are positively correlated with emotional exhaustion and othervariables of psychological strain.

Based on the literature on the affiliation motive it can be assumed that dealingwith other people and expressing emotions when interacting with these peoplesatisfies affiliation, status, and recognition needs, for example, by showingaltruistic behaviour (e.g. Bierhoff, 1990; Hill, 1987). In many cases, theexpression of emotion can be thought of as a spontaneous process experiencednot to be effortful at all (cf. Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Scherer & Wallbott,1990), but contributing to a social situation with positive consequences for theemployee concerned. The intentional expression of positive emotions usuallyincreases the probability of the interaction partner to show reciprocal positiveemotions in return (Wiemann & Giles, 1997). This can be perceived as positivefeedback contributing to the employee’s satisfaction and self-esteem. Adelmann(1995) referred to the facial feedback hypothesis to argue for positive effects ofemotion work. There is at least some evidence for the weak form of thishypothesis: In an experiment, Strack, Stepper, and Martin (1988) showed thatparticipants whose muscle groups necessary for laughing were stimulated founda movie more funny in comparison to a group whose laughing muscles wereinhibited.

There is, indeed, some evidence of the positive implications of emotion work.On a qualitative level, Tolich (1993) described supermarket clerks who enjoyedshowing prescribed emotions in the form of jokes or entertainment of customerswho chose their checkout lines. Stenross and Kleinman (1989) reported thatdetectives positively assessed interrogations with criminal suspects because this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 385

played a central role for goal achievement, namely, solving a case. Wharton(1993) found a positive relation with job satisfaction and Grandey (1998)reported a positive correlation between expressing positive emotions and jobsatisfaction. Based on these considerations and empirical findings it wasexpected that emotional requirement variables are positively correlated withpersonal accomplishment, self-esteem, and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Emotion work control andinteraction control have a positive effect on health

Emotion work-related control is conceptualized as a special case of jobcontrol concerning the possibility to decide whether or not one likes to expressemotions in a certain situation. In many studies on job stress (e.g. Kahn &Byiosiere, 1992) it has been shown that job control is typically positively relatedto well-being. Therefore, it can be expected that this is also true for the specialcases of emotion work control and interaction control. There is no directempirical evidence so far. However, on a qualitative level, it has been shown thatthe exertion of control in social interactions was perceived to be positive and thatemployees struggled for control in interactions with clients (Rafaeli, 1989;Tolich, 1993).

Hypothesis 5: Emotional dissonance is negativelyrelated with health

Hochschild (1983) was the first who described the negative effects when positiveemotions have to be displayed when either nothing is felt or if the felt emotionsare even in contrast to the displayed emotions. Hochschild asserted that ifemployees do not feel what they ought to feel, they may blame themselves andfeel phony and hypocritical. This may result in low self-esteem (Kruml &Geddes, 1998). In such cases, they may also start to blame the company, which islikely to go along with decreased job satisfaction. Rafaeli and Sutton (1987)argued that emotional dissonance is a form of person–role conflict (Kahn et al.,1964), which means that one has to do things that are against one’s betterjudgement. Because role conflict is a strong predictor of emotional exhaustion(cf. the meta-analysis of Lee & Ashforth, 1996), it was hypothesized thatemotional dissonance is also a strong predictor of exhaustion. All in all, theclearest empirical relation between emotion work variables and psychologicalstrain occurred for emotional dissonance and emotional exhaustion (Abraham,1998; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998; Morris & Feldman, 1997) anddepersonalization (Grandey, 1998). Mostly, no relationship was found forrelations with personal accomplishment (Grandey, 1998). Empirical evidence onthe relation between emotional dissonance and job satisfaction is mixed. Morrisand Feldman found a negative relation between emotional dissonance and jobsatisfaction, whereas Grandey (1998) did not.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

386 ZAPF ET AL.

METHOD

Samples

The following analyses were based on three samples. The first sample consistedof employees working in a home for handicapped children and other socialservice institutions (N=83) in South Germany: 80% were women, which istypical for the human services; average age was 38 years; 58% worked in thechildren’s home and had direct client contact (nurses, team leaders, socialworkers), 19% worked also in the children’s home, but had no direct clientcontact (administration, technical staff). Moreover, 24% were employees withdirect client contact in a hospital, and in other homes for problem children andhandicapped children. As in the other studies, participation was voluntary.

The second sample was collected in the hotel business. With the help of theBerufsgenossenschaft Nahrung (professional food association), 27 hotels werecontacted and 867 questionnaires were sent off. We received 175 questionnaires,which corresponded to a response rate of 20.3%. Discussion with our personalcontacts with hotel representatives revealed that the low response rate wasmostly due to heavy workload of the hotel employees. Most of the participantswere employed in hotels as front-line officers, waiters, or waitresses and otherhotel professions; 71% were women and 80% of the sample were between 18and 32 years old (25% between 18 and 22, 32% between 23 and 27, and 24%between 28 and 32 years); 15% had a general secondary school degree(Hauptschule), 29% had a lower school-leaving certificate (mittlere Reife), 44%had a high school diploma (Abitur), and 11% some type of university degree.Only a minority of 18% did not have a special occupational education related tothe hotel business.

The third sample consisted of 250 participants employed in 14 call centres ofvarious firms with an overall response rate of 50%. This sample consisted ofemployees who all had voice-to-voice contacts with clients: 75% were female;the average age was 31 years; 74% had a high school diploma (Abitur) or somekind of university degree; 76% received calls but did not call clients themselves(inbound), the others mostly both called clients and received calls (inbound andoutbound; details in Isic, Dormann, & Zapf, in press).

Procedure

In Study 1, we first developed a list of items covering the constructs of emotionwork described earlier. Then we gave a first draft of the questionnaire to nursesand social education workers who gave feedback with regard to the applicabilityand comprehensibility of the items. This process was repeated and the resultingquestionnaire was administered to the first sample. Starting with this version andthe first empirical results of Sample 1, a version of the questionnaire wasdeveloped for the hotel business sample. During this process it became clear that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 387

part of the developed items were domain specific, whereas another part seemedto be applicable for a variety of professions. In the hotel business, the first draft ofthe questionnaire was discussed with 10 persons from various service branches.They received the questionnaire and were also interviewed. A revised versionwas then applied to a sample of hotel service students (n=26). These studentswere asked to fill in the questionnaire and to comment on the applicability andcomprehensibility of the items. These comments and the psychometric results ledto the final version used for the hotel sample. This version consisted of domainspecific and general items. The general items of Sample 2 and some newlydeveloped general items were applied in the third sample. Here, the questionnairewas much shorter than in the previous versions, because it was intended todevelop a short instrument which can be applied in all areas with person-relatedwork and which can be used as a supplement to other job stress instruments.

Instruments

To assess the construct validity of emotion work, several other variables wereincluded in the study.

Job satisfaction was measured by the Kunin-item in Study 2. According toWanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), a reliability of 0.57 was assumed for thissingle-item measure. In the other studies a job satisfaction scale developed bySemmer and Baillod, (1991) was used. It consisted of the Kunin item and variousother items which were developed on the background of the job satisfactionmodel of Bruggemann (1974). High scores mean satisfaction, low scores meandissatisfaction including a resigned attitude towards one’s job.

Psychosomatic complaints, irritation, and self-esteem were measured usingscales developed by Mohr (1986, 1991). The psychosomatic complaints scaleconsisted of a list of 20 psychosomatic symptoms such as nervousness,headaches, tension, high blood pressure, and insomnia. Irritation consisted ofitems referring to anger and not being able to stop thinking about one’s work.Finally, self-esteem was measured with items like “I am proud of myachievements”. The pychosomatic complaints and self-esteem items wereanswered on a 5-point scale, whereas a 7-point scale was used for irritation.

Burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accom-plishment) was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory—Germanversion of Büssing and Perrar (1992). Emotional exhaustion measures one’sfeeling of being burnt out, frustrated, and perceiving working with people to bevery demanding. Depersonalization comprises the tendency to treat clients likeobjects and to become indifferent and apathetic with regard to clients. ReducedPersonal Accomplishment includes the feeling of having reduced energy to do

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

388 ZAPF ET AL.

things and of not being able to meet one’s aspirations. The burnout items wereanswered on a 7-point scale. The descriptive data of the scales used for validationpurposes are summarized in Table 1.

RESULTS

In the first study, because of sample size, we used exploratory factor analysesEFA (principal components analyses and varimax rotation) to test whether theitems behaved as predicted by the theoretical concept. In the second and thirdstudy we applied confirmatory factor analyses CFA using LISREL 8.3 ofJöreskog and Sörbom (1993), however, also in an exploratory manner. Theresults of Study 1 were used as starting models.

For Study 1, EFA showed that the items for emotional requirements loaded onthree factors. The first factor referred to the display of positive emotions(example item: “How often does it occur in your job that you have to expresspleasant emotions towards your clients?)”. The second factor comprised itemsreferring to the variety of emotion display and the need to deal with negativeemotions of clients (example items: “How often does it occur in your job that youhave to express unpleasant emotions towards your clients?” “How often does itoccur in your job that you have to consider negative moods of your clients?”). Asexpected, “sensitivity requirements” also led to a separate factor (example item:(“Does your job require you to pay attention to the feelings of your clients?”).This factor consisted of items that asked whether sensitivity or knowledge aboutthe clients’ current feelings is a job requirement. Moreover, a factor foremotional dissonance appeared consisting of items referring to displayingemotions not felt as well as to the suppression of felt emotions (example item:“ ‘A’ can openly display his/her feelings towards clients—‘B’ has to displayfeelings towards clients which do not match his/her true feelings. What is yourjob like?”). Finally, a factor comprising items referring to control with regard tosocial situations where emotion work is taking place was developed (exampleitem: “Is it up to you how long you pay attention to a client?”). Contrary to ourintention it was not possible to develop a scale for emotion work control. Theitems of this scale loaded on other factors as well, particularly on the emotionaldissonance and the interaction control factor.

In Study 2, we used CFA for scale development. We started with the solutionof Study 1 and tried to model a positive emotion display factor and a negativeemotion/variety factor. Moreover, we again tried to model a factor for emotionwork control. The first attempts showed a low fit. Again, it was not possible todevelop a factor for emotion work control, but for interaction control. Second, itturned out that the emotional requirement items fell into four groups: positiveemotions display, negative/variety of emotions, sensitivity requirements, anditems which referred to showing sympathy as a job requirement. The inspectionof the sympathy items showed that these items were difficult to locate on a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 389

389

TABLE 1

Descriptive data of study variables

Mea

nSD

Em

otio

nal

Dep

erso

nal-

Per

sona

lIr

rita

tion

Psy

chos

omat

icSe

lf-

Job

Exh

aust

ion

izat

ion

Acc

omp

lish

men

tC

ompl

aint

ses

teem

Sati

sfac

tion

Bu

rnou

t:E

mot

iona

l ex

haus

tion

2.38

0.84

(0.8

7)

2.2

00.

85 (

0.85

)2.

571.

24(0

.92

)

Dep

erso

nali

zati

on1.

560.

57 0

.50*

*(0

.43

)2.

140.

950

.65*

*(0

.67

)2.

320.

980.

58**

(0.6

5)

Per

sona

l ac

com

plis

hmen

t4.

970.

82–0

.06

0.02

(0.7

9)

4.57

1.07

–0.0

5–0

.05

(0.8

0)

4.75

0.98

–0.3

0**

–0.1

3*(0

.78

)

Irri

tati

on2.

971.

090.

43**

0.37

**–0

.15

(0.8

1)

2.89

1.17

0.52

**0.

37**

–0.0

7(0

.88

)2.

711.

200.

56**

0.30

**–0

.15*

(0.8

9)

Psy

chos

omat

ic c

ompl

aint

s 2

.17

0.73

0.49

**0.

36**

–0.2

6*0.

56**

(0.9

1) 2

.13

0.64

0.70

**0.

39 *

*0.

06 0

.58*

*(0

.91)

2.4

60.

750.

64**

0.33

**–0

.30

**0.

62**

(0.9

2)

Sel

f-es

teem

4.37

0.42

– 0.

21–0

.25*

0.17

–0.5

0**

–0.

28**

(0.8

7) 4

.40

0.41

–0.1

2–0

.04

0.23

–0.2

5**

–0.1

8*(0

.71)

4.3

70.

44–0

.25

**–0

.14

**0.

39–0

.29

**–0

.22*

(0.6

9)

Job

sati

sfac

tion

5.18

0.85

–0.4

6**

–0.5

1**

0.12

–0.2

1–0

.33

**–0

.02

(0.7

5)5.

171.

03–0

.50

**–0

.40

**0.

22*

–0.2

3**

–0.3

0**

0.26

**a

4.36

1.28

–0.7

2**

–0.5

3**

0.34

**–0

.40

**–0

.50

**0.

19**

(0.8

6)

Cro

nbac

h’s

alph

a in

par

enth

eses

; *

P <

.05

, **

P <

.01.

For

eac

h se

t of

3 r

ows,

row

I:

chil

dren

’s h

ome

(N=

83);

row

II:

hot

el b

usin

ess

(N=

175)

; ro

w I

II: c

all

cent

re (

N=

250)

; a s

ingl

e K

unin

-ite

m; a

ccor

ding

to

Wan

ous

et a

l. (

1997

), e

stim

ated

rel

iabi

lity

= .5

7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

390 ZAPF ET AL.TABLE 2

Result of the confirm

atory factor analysis of Study 3 (call centre)

Pos

itiv

eN

egat

ive

Em

oti

ona

lSe

nsi

tivi

tyR

outi

nene

ssIn

tera

ctio

nE

mot

ions

Em

otio

nsD

isso

nan

ceR

equi

rem

ents

Con

tro

l

Eaa

1 R

equi

rem

ent t

o ex

pres

s pl

easa

nt e

mot

ions

0.60

–0.2

3E

aa3

Bri

ng c

usto

mer

in g

ood

moo

d0.

79E

a1 S

how

inte

nsiv

e fe

elin

gs v

s. s

how

sup

erfi

cial

fee

ling

s0.

250.

33E

aa2

Req

uire

men

t to

exp

ress

unp

leas

ant

emot

ions

0.6

1E

avl E

xpre

ss d

iffe

rent

em

otio

ns d

epen

ding

on

situ

atio

n0.

560.

47E

av2

Exp

ress

bot

h pl

easa

nt a

nd u

nple

asan

t em

otio

ns v

s.0.

58ex

pres

s on

ly e

ithe

r pl

easa

nt o

r un

plea

sant

em

otio

nsE

au1

Req

uire

men

t to

supp

ress

fee

ling

s–0

.22

0.81

Eau

2 Im

port

ant t

o su

ppre

ss f

eeli

ngs

vs. m

eani

ngle

ss w

hich

0.43

feel

ings

vs.

mea

ning

less

Ead

1 D

ispl

ay e

mot

ions

whi

ch d

o no

t cor

resp

ond

to i

nner

0.78

feel

ings

Ead

2 D

ispl

ay p

osit

ive

emot

ions

whi

le f

eeli

ng i

ndif

fere

nt0.

68–0

.23

–0.1

7E

ad3

For

ce y

ours

elf

to s

how

cer

tain

fee

ling

s0.

62E

as1

Req

uire

men

t to

be s

ensi

tive

to

the

feel

ings

of

cust

omer

s0.

66–0

.15

Eas

2 Im

port

ant t

o kn

ow w

hat a

cus

tom

er f

eels

0.78

Eas

3 Im

port

ant t

o pu

t one

self

in t

he c

usto

mer

’s p

osit

ion

0.85

Ear

1 A

fter

a s

hort

tim

e po

ssib

le to

han

dle

emot

ions

rou

tine

ly0.

59E

ar2

Con

tact

s w

ith

cust

omer

s al

way

s si

mil

ar0.

63E

ah1

Can

you

inte

rrup

t an

inte

ract

ion

wit

h a

cust

omer

?0.

49E

ah2

Can

fin

ish

inte

ract

ion

wit

h cu

stom

er v

s. d

epen

dent

on

0.95

cust

omer

s’ w

ishe

sE

ah3

Inte

ract

ion

depe

nds

on t

he c

usto

mer

’s m

ood

0.34

Eah

4 D

urat

ion

of th

e in

tera

ctio

n in

depe

nden

t of

the

0.18

cust

omer

’s f

eeli

ngs

Chi

2 (d

f =

148

) =

215

.03

(P <

.01)

, RM

SE

A (

Roo

t m

ean

squa

re e

rror

of

appr

oxim

atio

n) =

0.0

46, G

FI

(Goo

dnes

s of

fit

) =

0.9

1, A

GF

I (a

djus

ted

good

ness

of f

it)

= 0

.87,

NF

I (n

orm

ed f

it in

dex)

= 0

.82,

NN

FI

(non

-nor

med

fit

inde

x) =

0.9

1.

390

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 391

391

TABLE 3

Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of emotion work variables

Va

riab

leM

ean

SDP

osi

tive

Neg

ativ

eSh

owin

gSe

nsit

ivit

yE

mot

iona

lR

out

inen

ess

Inte

ract

ion

Em

otio

nsE

mot

ions

Sym

path

yR

equi

rem

ents

Dis

sona

nce

Co

ntro

l

Dis

play

of:

Pos

itiv

e em

otio

ns3.

610.

73(0

.90

) 3

.99

0.79

(0.

81)

3.58

0.82

(0.5

2)

Neg

ativ

e em

otio

ns3.

060.

730.

59**

(0.8

1)

1.85

0.6

0.20

(0.6

5)

2.67

0.92

0.28

**(0

.56

)

Sh

owin

g sy

mpa

thy

––

––

–2.

080.

850.

40**

0.57

**(0

.69

)–

––

––

Sen

siti

vity

req

uire

men

ts4.

010.

690.

58**

0.63

**–

(0.9

2)

2.78

0.97

0.60

**0.

36**

0.59

**(0

.80

)3.

431.

040.

36**

0.22

**–

(0.8

2)

Em

otio

nal

diss

onan

ce3.

650.

540.

180.

19

–0.

10(0

.90)

2.8

90.

870.

47**

0.41

**0.

44**

0.5

2**

(0.7

8) 3

.64

0.74

0.31

**0.

17**

–

0.38

**(0

.79)

Ro

utin

enes

s–

––

––

––

––

––

––

––

–3.

090.

950.

25**

0.2

4**

–0.

34**

0.14

*(0

.54)

Inte

ract

ion

cont

rol

2.79

0.5

9–0

.27*

–0.2

1a–

–0.3

0**

–0.

21a

–(0

.90)

2.8

00.

920.

000.

32**

0.23

**0.

19**

–0.0

7–

(0.7

0) 1

.92

0.63

–0.1

5*0.

06–

0.16

*–0

.30

**–0

.03

(0.5

1)

Cro

nbac

h’s

alph

a in

par

enth

eses

; *

P <

.05,

**P

< .

01.

a P

= .

06.

For

eac

h se

t of

3 r

ows,

row

I:

chil

dren

’s h

ome

(N=

83);

row

II:

hot

el b

usin

ess

(N=

175)

;ro

w I

II: c

all c

entr

e (N

=25

0).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

392 ZAPF ET AL.

positive-negative emotions dimension. Showing positive emotions obviouslymeant to show emotions to make clients feel happy. Showing sympathy meant tofeel with a client who for some reason feels negative. Showing negative emotionsreferred to negative social interactions, for example, talking to a guest who wasmolesting another guest. Little problems occurred for the modelling of theemotional dissonance and sensitivity requirements factors. Finally, it waspossible to model the interaction control factor. We stopped model trimmingwhen the factor loadings were significant and when there were theoreticalreasons for not eliminating items with cross-loadings.

Finally, in the third sample, a positive emotions display and negativeemotions/variety factor, sensitivity requirements, emotional dissonance andinteraction control could be modelled. In addition, there was a factor “routinenessof emotional display" consisting of two items. The emotion work control factorcould, again, not be modelled. The result of the confirmatory factor analysis ofStudy 3 is shown in Table 2. Using the CFA procedure in an exploratory mannerwe used the modification index of LISREL for model trimming. Themodification index indicates where model restrictions do not fit with the data. Itis suggested that modification indices higher than 5 indicate a substantial misfit(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Therefore, we included all cross-loadings indicatedby modification indices higher than 5. This procedure led to six cross-loadings ofwhich two are relevant. The intensity of emotions item also showed a highnegative loading on the routineness factor indicating that intensity might also beconsidered different from the frequency of positive emotion display (cf. theresults of Brotheridge & Lee, 1998). Second, expression of different emotionsalso showed a high loading on the positive emotion display factor. Table 3 showsthat it was possible to develop the scales for emotion work with satisfactoryreliabilities (Hypothesis 1). Although some cross-loadings occurred in all threestudies we consider discriminant validity to be satisfactory.

According to Hypothesis 2a we expected that the emotional requirementscales would show significant positive correlations. This was so in all cases withcorrelations ranging from 0.22 to 0.63. Second, it was also expected that theemotional requirement scales would also be positively correlated with emotionaldissonance (Hypothesis 2b). This was the case for Studies 2 and 3; for Study 1the correlations were in the expected direction with two of the three correlationssignificant at the 10% level. Finally, according to Hypothesis 2c, emotionaldissonance was expected to be negatively correlated with interaction control.This was the case in Study 3. In Study 1 the correlation failed to reachsignificance level, while in Study 2 the correlation was not significant.

The third hypothesis was that the emotional requirement scales would showpositive and negative correlations with strain and well-being. With one exception(display of positive emotions in Study 2), all emotional requirement scales werecorrelated with emotional exhaustion (Table 4). In Study 3, all emotionalrequirement scales were also correlated with depersonalization. For Study 2, this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 393TABLE 4

Correlations between emotion work and psychological strain and well-being

Pos

itiv

eN

egat

ive

Show

ing

Sens

itiv

ity

Em

otio

nal

Rou

tin

enes

sIn

tera

ctio

nE

mot

ions

Em

otio

nsSy

mpa

thy

Req

uire

men

tsD

isso

nanc

eC

ontr

ol

Em

otio

nal

exha

usti

on25

*.3

7**

– .2

4*.4

2**

––.

14.0

9.2

1**

.17

*.2

7**

.33*

*–

–.02

.15*

.15*

– .2

2**

.48*

* .1

1–.

19**

Dep

erso

nali

zati

on.1

2.1

8–

.02

.31*

–.0

1.0

7.4

1**

.24

** .1

9*.3

7*–

.06

.13*

.19*

*–

.17*

* .4

0**

.03

–.14

*

Per

sona

l ac

com

plis

hmen

t.3

8**

.43*

*–

.39*

* –

.11

–.0

0.4

4**

.11

.27*

* .4

4**

.26*

* –

–.02

.28*

* .0

9–

.16

** –

.10

.09

.03

Irri

tati

on .1

0.1

2–

.05

.45*

*–

–.25

*.0

5.1

0.0

9.1

8*.2

7**

–.0

4.1

7*.0

8–

.21*

* .2

6**

.09

–.19

**

Psy

chos

omat

ic c

ompl

aint

s–.

02–.

03 –

–.05

.35*

* –

–.0

9 .1

4.0

9.1

4.2

3**

.36*

*_

–.0

9.0

5.1

8*–

.22*

*.4

0**

.16*

–.16

*

Sel

f-es

teem

–.04

–.04

–.11

–.02

–.24

*–

.01

.06

–.05

––.

03.0

1–

.12

.08

.20*

– .0

7–.

03.0

8–.

01

Job

sati

sfac

tion

–.1

0.0

5–

–.02

–.30

**–

.04

.05

–.08

.05

–.02

–.12

–.0

5–.

08–.

07 –

–.19

**–.

47**

–.02

.24*

*

* P

< .0

5, *

*P <

.0. F

or e

ach

set o

f 3

row

s, r

ow I

: chi

ldre

n’s

hom

e (N

= 8

3); r

ow I

I: h

otel

bus

ines

s (N

= 1

75);

row

III

: cal

l cen

tre

(N =

250

).

393

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

394 ZAPF ET AL.

was the case in three of four cases. For Studies 2 and 3, sensitivity requirementswere positively correlated with irritation and psychosomatic complaints. Inaddition, display of positive emotions and sensitivity requirements werepositively correlated with personal accomplishment, indicating the positiveeffects of emotion work. However, most of the correlations with self-esteem andjob satisfaction were not significant.

In Hypothesis 4 we assumed negative relations between control andpsychological strain. This hypothesis was mostly rejected because it was notpossible to develop a scale for emotion work control. For interaction control, 6out of 21 correlations were significant and in the expected direction.

Finally, as expected, emotional dissonance showed the clearest effects onpsychological strain. In all three samples, high correlations appeared withemotional exhaustion, depersonalization, irritation, and psychosomaticcomplaints. In addition, in two of the three samples, the expected negativecorrelation with job satisfaction appeared.

DISCUSSION

In this article we argued that traditional job stress analysis instruments arenot able to cover the full range of job stressors frequent in work where interactionwith clients is a central part. We described the concept of emotion work,first introduced by Hochschild (1983), as the job requirement to displayorganizationally desired emotions. Following action theory-based conceptionsof job analysis, we differentiated between emotional regulation requirements,emotional regulation possibilities, and emotional regulation problems. Basedon three empirical studies in a handicapped children’s home, in the hotelbusiness, and in call centres, we were able to develop scales for the requirementto display positive emotions, the requirement to display negative emotionsincluding also a high variety of emotions, and sensitivity requirements. Inone study, a factor “requirement to show sympathy” was found. In all threestudies we were able to develop scales for interaction control, but not for emotionwork control. Finally, a scale for emotional dissonance could be developed. Thescales showed satisfactory reliabilities. Discriminant validity could bedemonstrated, although some items showed cross-loadings on other factors. Thisshould be improved in future studies. Most of the hypotheses regarding constructvalidity were supported by the data. Emotional regulation requirement scaleswere both positively and negatively related to various variables of psychologicalstrain and well-being, supporting the view that person-related work is—as isobject-related work—not negative per se. As in most of the other empiricalstudies, emotional dissonance has proven to be a stressor that shows negativerelationships with health. Finally, interaction control partly showed the expectednegative correlations with psychological strain and positive relations with jobsatisfaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 395

Several issues are noticeable in the present studies. First, the studies supportthe proposition that emotion work is a multidimensional phenomenon (e.g.Morris & Feldman, 1996). They show that sub-constructs of emotion work havepartly contradictory relations with health and well-being, thus explaining thefailure to find correlations with dependent variables when overall scales foremotion work were used (e.g. Adelmann, 1995).

Expressing positive emotions showed both positive and negative relationswith health variables. The positive correlations of the requirement to expresspositive emotions with personal accomplishment supports the view thatHochschild’s proposition of emotion work to be alienating and stressful is one-sided (cf. Stenross & Kleinman, 1989; Tolich, 1993; Wharton, 1993). It is likelythat the expression of positive emotions is reinforced by positive customerreactions and is generally valued both by the customers and the management(Doucet, 1998). On the other hand, the failure to find consistent correlations withjob satisfaction and self-esteem obviously requires further research. It couldeither be because of methodological problems or because the emotionalcomponents of social interactions are of significantly less importance comparedto cognitive task aspects. Variety/negative emotions showed more negativerelations compared to the display of positive emotions. This supports thequalitative findings of Stenross and Kleinman (1989), who found that showingsympathy and dealing with negative emotions of others was a stressfulexperience for detectives. On the other hand, it can be assumed that dealing withcomplicated interactions where negative emotions have to be handled can also bea source of feelings of personal accomplishment when this is considered to be agenuine part of one’s job, as in the case of employees of the handicappedchildren’s home.

In all, it is remarkable that all our studies differentiated between the display ofpositive emotions and a factor either referring to the variety of emotions or todisplaying or treating negative emotions. Obviously, variety of emotionsbecomes relevant when both positive and negative emotions have to be displayedin contrast to having to display only positive emotions. For the samples analysedin this article, it can be excluded that some of our participants are only required toshow negative emotions in their jobs. Rather, practically all participants had toshow positive emotions, which is demonstrated by the higher means of thepositive emotions scales compared to the negative emotions scales. If the displayof positive emotions is the starting point, then the requirement to display a highvariety of emotions means to have to display negative emotions as well.Therefore, this scale can both be interpreted as the display of negative emotionsor the display of a high variety of emotions. The data also show that therequirement to show a high variety of emotions does not guarantee that they canmore easily be matched than more homogeneous display requirements, asimplied by Morris and Feldman (1996). Rather, this scale obviously refers tothree problems: First, it seems to be more difficult to feel the emotion if a high

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

396 ZAPF ET AL.

variety of emotion display is required than if only one type of emotion should beshown. Second, adaptation processes to show the various emotions may beeffortful, and third and most likely, in most cases the display of negativeemotions may be negative per se because they often indicate unpleasant socialinteractions.

Against expectations, it was not possible to develop an emotion work controlscale. Actually, it was possible to develop scales with sufficient internalconsistency in the various samples, but the scale lacked discriminant validity.The items for this scale also loaded on the interaction control factor and on theemotional dissonance factor. In further research the item wording should beimproved to make the scale methodologically more sound. However, thereremains the problem of theoretical overlap, which makes achieving discriminantvalidity difficult. This is necessarily so between interaction control and emotionwork control because they both were conceptualized to be sub-concepts of thegeneral control concept. However, the main problem lies in the discriminantvalidity between emotion work control and emotional dissonance. Emotionaldissonance, as do all job stressors, implies a minimum of non-control. Otherwisethe stressor would simply be avoided. These conceptual reasons may make itdifficult to develop a scale with sufficient discriminant validity.

As in most of the other studies, it was possible to develop measures foremotional dissonance with good scale properties and the expected correlationswith other emotion work and health variables. However, further research shouldinvestigate the conceptualization of emotional dissonance as an objectivestressor, which could be supported by observation and peer evaluation.

The data suggest that the analysis of emotion work is a neglected area inorganizational stress research which should be given more attention in the future.Based on the data, it can be suggested that emotion work is not per se eitherpositive or negative. Rather, emotion display and sensitivity requirements arerelated to emotional exhaustion but also to personal accomplishment. In line withHochschild’s (1983) qualitative findings, it is emotional dissonance that is themismatch between the emotions that have to be displayed and the emotions thatone would like to display in a certain situation that is a stressor and that can leadto psychological strain in the long run. Finally, it can be concluded that in jobswhere interacting with clients is a substantial part of the work, traditionalconcepts of job stress do not suffice but should be complemented by conceptsmeasuring emotional requirements and emotional dissonance at work.

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: Antecedents, consequences andmoderators. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monogaphs, 124, 229–246.

Adelmann, P.K. (1995). Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S.L. Sauter & L.R.Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 371–381). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 397

Ashforth, B.E., & Humphrey, R.H. (1993). Emotional labour in service roles: The influence ofidentity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115.

Basch, J., & Fisher, C.D. (1998, August). Affective events–emotion matrix: A classification ofwork events and associated emotions. Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions andOrganizational Life, San Diego, CA.

Best, R.G., Downey, R.G., & Jones, R.G. (1997). Job burnout: A dysfunctional consequence ofcontextual performance. Paper presented at the Convention of the Sociely for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology.

Bierhoff, H.W. (1990). Psychologie hilfreichen Verhaltens [Psychology of helpful behaviour].Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.

Briner, R.B. (1995). Emotional dissonance, emotional deviance, true feelings, and the self inorganizational life. Paper prepared for the 12th EGOS Colloquium, Istanbul, Turkey.

Brotheridge, C.M., & Lee, R.T. (1998, August). On the dimensionality of emotional labor:Development and validation of an emotional labor scale. Paper presented at the firstconference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San Diego.

Brucks, U. (1998). Arbeitspsychologie personbezogener Dienstleistungen [The work psychologyof person-related sevice]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Bruggemann, A. (1974). Zur Unterscheidung verschiedener Formen von Arbeitszufriedenheit[On the differentiation of various forms of job satisfaction]. Arbeit und Leistung, 28, 281–284.

Büssing, A., & Perrar, K.-M. (1992). Die Messung von Burnout. Untersuchung einer deutschenFassung des Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-D) [The measurement of burnout: Studies on aGerman version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory]. Diagnostica , 38, 328–353 .

Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

Cordes, C.L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and integration of research on job burnout.Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656.

Doucet, L. (1998, August). Responsiveness: Emotion and information dynamics in serviceinteractions . Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions in Organizational Life, SanDiego.

Edwards, J.E., & van Harrison, R. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensionalreexamination of the relationship between person–environment fit and strain. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 628–648.

Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K.R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.),Approaches of emotion (pp. 319–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Ekman, P., & Davidson, R.J. (Eds). (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1982). Felt, false and miserable smiles. Journal of NonverbalBehavior, 6, 238–252.

Erickson, R.J. (1991). When emotion is the product: Self, society, and inauthenticity in apostmodern world. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman,Washington DC.

Frese, M. (1987). A theory of control and complexity: Implications for software design andintegration of the computer system into the workplace. In M. Frese, E. Ulich, & W. Dzida(Eds.), Psychological issues of human computer intercation in the work place (pp. 313–338).Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1987). Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Sozialen Stressoren amArbeitsplatz [A scale measuring social stressors at work]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft,41, 134–141.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs.subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C.L. Cooper& R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 375–411).Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

398 ZAPF ET AL.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology; A German approach. InH.C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam

Books.Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Grandey, A. (1998, August). Emotional labor: A concept and its correlates. Paper presented at

the first conference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San Diego.Greiner, B., & Leitner, K. (1989). Assessment of job stress: The RHIA-instrument. In K. Landau

& W. Rohmert (Eds.), Recent developments in job analysis: Proceedings of the internationalsymposium on Job Analysis, University of Hohenheim, March 14–15 1989 (pp. 53–66).London: Taylor & Francis.

Hacker, W. (1973). Allgemeine Arbeits-und Ingenieurspsychologie [General work andengineering psychology]. Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Hacker, W. (1998). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten [General work psychology: Psychic regulation of work actions]. (4th ed.) Bern,Switzerland: Huber.

Hackman, J.R. (1970). Tasks and task performance in research on stress. In J.E. McGrath (Ed.),Social and psychological factors in stress (pp. 202–237). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Hill, C.A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people but in different ways. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1008–1018.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Isic, A., Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (in press). Belastungen und Ressourcen an Call Center-

Arbeitsplätzen [Stressors and resources in call-centres]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft.Izard, C.E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 (Computer program). Chicago: Scientific

Software.Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies

in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.Kahn, R.L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed, pp. 571–650).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kruml, S.M., & Geddes, D. (1998, August). Catching fire without burning out: Is there an idealway to perform emotional labor? Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions inOrganizational Life, San Diego.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three

dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.Marx, K. (l977). Capital (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage. (Original work published 1867).Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mohr, G. (1986). Die Erfassung psychischer Befindensbeeinträchtigungen bei Arbeitern [The

measurement of psychological dysfunctioning of workers]. Frankfurt a.M. Peter Lang.Mohr, G. (1991). Fünf Subkonstrukte psychischer Befindensbeeinträchtigungen bei Industriear-

beitern: Auswahl und Entwicklung [Five subconstructs of psychological dysfunctioning of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

EMOTION WORK 399

industrial workers: Selection and development]. In S. Greif, E. Bamberg, & N.K. Semmer(Eds.), Psychischer Streß am Arbeitsplatz (pp. 91–119). Göttingen, Germay: Hogrefe.

Morris, J.A. & Feldman, D.C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences ofemotional labor. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 989–1010.

Morris, J.A., & Feldman, D.C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal ofManagerial Issues, 9, 257–274.

Nerdinger, F.W. (1994). Zur Psychologie der Dienstleistung [The psychology of service].Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.

Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of supermarketcashiers. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 245–273.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy ofManagement Review, 12, 23–37.

Riggio, R.E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 48, 649–660.

Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Schaufeli, W.B. & Buunk, B.P. (1996). Professional burnout. In M.J. Schabracq, J.A.M.

Winnubst, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 31–46).Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A criticalanalysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Schaufeli, W., Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (Eds.). (1993). Professional burnout: recentdevelopments in theory and research. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Scherer, K.R. (1997). Emotion. In W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone, & G.M. Stephenson (Eds.),Sozialpsychologie. Eine Einführung (3rd ed., pp. 293–330). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Scherer, K.R., & Wallbott, H. (1990). Ausdruck von Emotionen [Expression of emotions]. InK.R. Scherer, Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Psychologie der Emotion (Vol. C/IV/3, pp. 345–422). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Semmer, N.K. (1984). Streßbezogene Tätigkeitsanalyse [Stress-oriented job analysis].Weinheim, Basel, Switzerland: Beltz.

Semmer, N.K. (1996). Individual differences, work stress, and health. In M.J. Schabracq, J.A.Winnubst, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 51–86).Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Semmer, N.K., & Baillod, J. (1991, August). Different forms of job satisfaction. Paper presentedat the congress of the swiss society of psychology, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Semmer, N.K., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1995). Assessing stress at work: A framework and aninstrument. In O. Svane & C. Johansen (Eds.), Work and health—scientific basis of progress inthe working environment (pp. 105–113). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities.

Semmer, N.K., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1999). Instrument zur StressbezogenenTätigkeitsanalyse (ISTA) [Stress-oriented job analysis instrument ISTA) (pp. 176–204).In H. Dunckel (Ed.), Handbuch zur Arbeitsanalyse. Zurich, Switzerland: Verlag derFachvereine.

Spector, P.E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on affectivereactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work and Stress, 1, 155–162.

Spector, P.E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self report measuresof job conditions. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Roberston (Eds.), International review ofindustrial and organizational psychology, 1992 (Vol. 7, pp. 123–151). Chichester, UK:Wiley.

Stenross, B., & Kleinman, S. (1989). The highs and lows of emotional labor. Journal ofContemporary Ethnography, 17, 435–452.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

400 ZAPF ET AL.

Strack, F., Stepper, L.L., & Martin, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the humansmile: A non-obstrusive test of the facial-feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 768–777.

Strauss, A., Farahaugh, S., Suczek, B., & Wiener, C. (1980). Gefühlsarbeit. Ein Beitragzur Arbeits- & Berufssoziologie [Sentimental work. A contribution to work & occupationalsociology]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 32,629–651.

Strazdins, L. (1998). Integrating emotions: Multiple role measurement of emotional work.Australian National University, Canberra, Department of Psychology.

Tolich, M.B. (1993). Alienating and liberating emotions at work: Supermarket clerks’performance of customer service. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 361–381.

Volpert, W. (1974). Handlungsstrukturanalyse als Beitrag zur Qualifikationsforschung [Actionstructure analysis: A contribution to qualification research]. Köln, Germany: Pahl-Rugenstein.

Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S.K. (1996). The demand–control model ofjob strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69,153–166.

Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Hudy, M.J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are singleitem measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.

Wiemann, J.M., & Giles, H. (1997). Interpersonale Kommunikation [Interpersonal com-munication]. In W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone, & G.M. Stephenson (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie. EineEinführung (3rd ed., pp. 331–366). Berlin: Springer.

Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job.Work and Occupations, 20, 205–232.

Zapf, D. (1993). Stress-oriented job analysis of computerized office work. The European Workand Organizational Psychologist, 3, 85–100.

Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stressresearch: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

arce

lona

] at

06:

13 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012