Zapf 1999

This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]
On: 15 August 2013, At: 13:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered
Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal
of Work and
Organizational
Psychology
Publication details, including
instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/
pewo20
Emotion Work as a
Source of Stress:
The Concept and
Development of an
Instrument
Dieter Zapf , Christoph Vogt , Claudia
Seifert , Heidrun Mertini & Amela Isic
Published online: 10 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Dieter Zapf , Christoph Vogt , Claudia Seifert ,

Heidrun Mertini & Amela Isic (1999) Emotion Work as a Source of
Stress: The Concept and Development of an Instrument, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8:3, 371-400, DOI:
10.1080/135943299398230
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943299398230
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of

all the information (the Content) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as
to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should
be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and
other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of
the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
EMOTION
371
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY,
1999,WORK
8 (3), 371400
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 stress

research. Emotion work (emotional labour) was defined as the emotional
regulation required of the employees in the display of organizationally desired
emotions. Based on the existing literature on emotion work and action theory,
emotional regulation requirements (sub-scales: the requirement to express positive
emotions; the requirement to express and handle negative emotions, the
requirement to be sensitive to clients emotions, and the requirement to show
sympathy), emotional regulation possibilities (control), and emotional regulation
problems (emotional dissonance) were differentiated. Questionnaires were
developed and applied in a sample of employees in a handicapped childrens home
(N = 83), in the hotel business (N = 175) and employees working in call-centres
(N = 250). Scales showed satisfactory reliabilities. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses revealed minor problems with discriminant validity of the scales.
Construct validation showed that the emotion work scales were both positively and
negatively related with psychological health.
Psychological stress research in organizations comprises a substantial body of

research spanning the last 20 years, and demonstrating significant relations
between psychological stressors and strains. In 1989 the European Council
passed various laws to improve the protection of workers health and promote
measures of health and well-being. In many European countries, these laws still
have to be translated into national law. In Germany, this was achieved in 1996 by
passing a new law for occupational health and safety (Arbeitsschutzgesetz).
The new law addressed physical stressors such as carrying heavy weights or onesided and unusual body positions, environmental stressors such as noise or
temperature, which have been investigated in the human factors literature, and
Requests for reprints should be addressed to D. Zapf, Department of Psychology, J.W. GoetheUniversity Frankfurt, Mertonstr. 17, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany. Email: [email protected].
The hotel study was supported by the Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrung. Special thanks are due to
P. Brenz and A. Landgraf.
1999 Psychology Press Ltd
372
ZAPF ET AL.
psychological stressors. Although the former were explicitly mentioned, the

aspects these psychological stressors should comprise were not. Most studies on
psychological stressors at work measure stressors that are related to the work
tasks and to the organization of work (cf. Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Zapf,
Dormann, & Frese, 1996). Typical examples are quantitative and qualitative
overload or time pressure. There are only a few approaches that try to systematize
psychological job stressors based on a general framework. The most prominent
approaches 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 job
stressors 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, working
conditions are considered to be stressful because they negatively affect various
aspects of information processing during task execution and because they require
mental effort. Examples are time pressure, interruptions, concentration
necessities or uncertainty at work. Another perspective examines psychological
stressors associated with social relations at work. Scales addressing social
stressors (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 and
aggression.
Burnout is yet another research area that points to job requirements not
included in the concepts of psychological job stressors mentioned so far. Burnout
was 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 with
patients, clients, or children are very demanding and require a high amount of
empathy and emotional involvement. This is usually combined with a high
aspiration level to build up personal relationships and avoid treating other people
like objects. In these professions, the management of emotions is considered a
central part of work. Burnout is then an indication that employees are no longer
able to adequately manage their emotions when interacting with clients. It is a
syndrome consisting of three aspects: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,
and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1986). It is argued
that, in the long run, burnout leads to psychosomatic complaints, depression, and
other long-term stress effects. A recent meta-analysis (Lee & Ashforth, 1996) of
the existing literature found role stress to be one of the best predictors of burnout
variables. Interestingly, studies on burnout did not try to directly measure the
emotional aspects at work. Rather, these aspects were taken as a given by doing
research with samples where emotional job requirements could be taken for
granted. Instead, various job stressors, such as role conflict, role ambiguity, time
pressure, and lack of job control were measured.
EMOTION WORK
373
It is only recently that authors tried to investigate the relationships between

more 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 emotional
labour introduced by Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983). This concept refers to the
quality of interactions between employees and clients. The term clients is used
to refer to any person who interacts with an employee, for example, clients,
patients, children, customers, or guests. During face-to-face interactions with
clients many employees are required to express appropriate emotions as a job
requirement, for example, waiters or flight attendants are required to be friendly
even to arrogant or aggressive customers. Hochschild drew upon the work of
Goffman (1959) to argue that people in social interactions tend to play roles and
try to create certain impressions. Impressions include the display of normatively
appropriate emotions following certain display rules. In this respect, Morris and
Feldman (1996, p. 987) defined emotional labour as the effort, planning, and
control needed to express organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal
transactions.
It was our intention to investigate whether job requirements that refer to the
regulation of emotions could supplement the concepts of psychological job
stressors mentioned previously that refer to the regulation of cognition or
information processing. Hochschild, as a sociologist, differentiated between
emotional labour as the exchange value of work and emotional work as the use
value. In the present context, the psychological processes, for example, the
regulation processes of work actions rather than societal and economic aspects of
labour are considered. In psychology, the term labour is used to describe the
division of labour, labourmanagement relations, conflict resolution, and
collective bargaining. The term is not used when individual behaviour and
intrapsychic concepts are involved as in the concepts of physical and mental
work demands, work motivation, work involvement, work design, etc. To be
compatible with these research areas, the term emotion work is preferred. In
sum, emotion work possesses the following characteristics (Hochschild, 1983;
Morris & Feldman, 1997): (1) It is a significant component of jobs that require
either face-to-face or voice-to voice interactions with clients. This refers to the
service sector, in particular human services, but also to teachers, police,
correctional workers, debt collectors, and others. It should be noted that not all
jobs that require face-to-face interactions with clients belong to the service sector
and 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 or
voice-to-voice interactions with clients. (2) Emotions in these jobs are displayed
to influence other peoples attitudes and behaviours, usually by influencing their
emotional state. For example, a child nurse may show sympathy and talk to a hurt
child 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
374
ZAPF ET AL.
companies do not have explicit display rules as a part of the organizational

culture or as part of their job descriptions, in particular not in Continental Europe.
However, mission statements of companies sometimes incorporate display rules
and there may be implicit display rules taught in ones occupational education or
as part of ones professional ethos, for example, in the case of a nurse (Briner,
1995). In other cases, it may be the professional experience that you cant sell
anything if you are not polite, friendly, and helpful. Employers differ in their
attempts to control and direct how employees display emotions to clients. In
some cases, it is part of the supervisors jobs to take care that display rules are
observed. Increasingly, companies ask customers to evaluate whether they were
treated in a friendly manner.
A number of studies operationalized emotion work as a dichotomous variable
indicating the presence or absence of emotion work in an occupation
(Hochschild, 1983; Wharton, 1993). Hochschild suggested that emotion work
depends on the frequency of interpersonal contact between employee and client,
thus conceiving emotion work as an unidimensional construct negatively
correlated with employees health. Accordingly, some authors (e.g. Adelmann,
1995) operationalized one scale for emotion work. However, these studies could
not find the expected negative relations between emotion work and psychological
strain, suggesting that more differentiated concepts should be used.
Other authors have worked on the differentiation of various aspects of
emotion work, many of them referring to the seminal work of Morris and
Feldman (1996). Some started with Hochschilds (1983) concept of emotion
management to differentiate various dimensions of emotion work (e.g. Grandy,
1998; Kruml & Geddes, 1998). Other authors focused on determinants of
emotion work in the sense of objective job requirements: This emphasizes that
it is not in the discretion of the employee whether or not to express certain
emotions in a job. Rather, independent of a particular worker, it is required by the
organization and may be an explicit or implicit rule.
Approaches referring to the concept of emotion management differentiated it
based on how emotion work is done. One aspect differentiates between surface
acting and deep acting. Based on Goffman (1959), Hochschild (1983) argued that
individuals permanently manage their outer demeanour to conform with
situational requirements. Most emotion theorists propose that emotions consist
of several sub-systems (see Scherer, 1997): subjective feeling, physiological
reaction patterns, and expressive behaviour, the latter including facial
expression, voice and gesture. With reference to these concepts, surface acting
means that employees try to manage the visible aspects of emotions that appear
on the surface to bring them in line with the organizational display rules, while
the inner feelings remain unchanged. Another concept of Hochschild is active
deep 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 expressive
behaviour but also the inner feelings are regulated. Active deep acting refers to
EMOTION WORK
375
the case where an employee has to spend effort to regulate emotions. In other
cases, an employee may automatically feel the emotion required in a particular
situation. 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 is
required 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 the
display rule may require the suppression of undesired emotions and the
expression of neutrality or a positive emotion instead of a negative one.
Emotional dissonance may originate from faking in good faith when the
employee accepts the underlying display rule or from faking in bad faith when
the feeling rule is not accepted (Hochschild. 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987).
Various authors (e.g. Abraham, 1998; Adelmann, 1995) propose that faking in
bad faith has the most negative consequences.
Based on this, Grandey (1998) and Kruml and Geddes (1998) identified two
dimensions: emotional dissonance and emotional effort. Emotional dissonance
refers to Hochschilds concept of surface acting and passive deep acting
(automatic emotion regulation), which are considered to be the opposite ends of a
continuum. If an employee spontaneously feels the emotion, emotional
dissonance is low; if he or she feels nothing or the opposite emotion, emotional
dissonance is high. Emotional effort refers to the degree to which employees
actively try to change their inner feelings to match the feelings they are expected
to express. According to Kruml and Geddes, this dimension incorporates
Hochschilds (1983) active deep acting. Both dimensions showed a high
correlation in the studies of Grandey.
In conceptualizing emotion work as the behavioural response to variations in
the frequency, variety, intensity, and duration of interactions, Brotheridge and
Lee (1998, p. 7) used the term emotional labour to refer to actions undertaken
as a means of addressing role demands. In this sense, operationalizations of
emotion work come close to the concept of coping in stress research (Lazarus &
Folkman,1984; Semmer, 1996). The authors operationalized surface acting and
deep acting as the key constructs for emotion work. Deep acting refers to the
active attempts to align ones felt and displayed emotion, which means that the
inner feelings have to be adapted to the emotions that have to be displayed. In
contrast, surface acting means pretending to have the emotions expected to be
displayed. In this case, employees do not try to feel the emotions they have to
display. Brotheridge and Lee considered surface acting as the manifestation and
even a proxy for emotional dissonance.
Morris and Feldman (1996) concentrated on what they called dimensions of
emotion work: the frequency of emotion display, the attentiveness to display
rules required (referring to the intensity and duration of emotion display), the
variety of emotions to be expressed, and emotional dissonance. They argued that
376
ZAPF ET AL.
all these dimensions of emotion work would increase emotional exhaustion, the
core variable of burnout.
To conclude: Most authors consider the frequency, variety, duration, and
attentiveness of emotions as dimensions of emotion work. Emotional dissonance
is viewed somewhat differently. Several authors consider it to be a result of the
determinants of emotion work (e.g. Adelmann, 1995); some authors even place it
close to the dependent variables (e.g. Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). However,
there is some agreement to define emotional dissonance as the discrepancy
between displayed and felt emotions (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Morris &
Feldman, 1996, 1997) and to consider it as one of the key predictors of emotional
exhaustion. Brotheridge and Lee (1998) proposed that the emotional
requirements at work do not directly lead to emotional exhaustion but may do so
through 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: the
frequency of emotion work, the duration of emotion work, and emotional
dissonance. For the frequency and duration scales they did not directly refer to
emotion display but referred to the frequency and time interacting with clients,
whereas emotional dissonance items directly referred to the match between
displayed behaviour and felt emotions. Brotheridge and Lee (1998) and Grandey
(1998) followed the model proposed by Morris and Feldman (1996) and
operationalized scales for the dimensions of emotion work as frequency, variety,
attentiveness, and duration (single item), and emotional dissonance, surface
acting, and deep acting as the core variables of emotion work. In the first study of
Brotheridge and Lee (1998), a factor analysis produced four factors collapsing
emotional dissonance and surface acting into one factor, and intensity, variety,
and duration into another. The two other factors were deep acting and frequency
of emotional display. In a second study, the authors were able to distinguish
frequency, variety, intensity, and duration, and surface acting and deep acting.
Best, Downey, and Jones (1997) measured how often different emotions were
expected on the job. Using factor analyses, they found three factors representing
the expression of positive emotions, suppressing negative emotions and
expressing negative emotions, whereby the latter showed a low reliability and a
low response frequency. Abraham (1998) operationalized emotional dissonance
using items from Adelmann (1995) that referred to display rules in the
organization. She then developed identical items rephrased to reflect the degree
to which the respondents would actually show the corresponding emotions.
Difference scores of the respective items were then computed to reflect
emotional dissonance.
For the present studies we combined the literature on emotion work described
previously with action theory-based approaches in stress research (Frese & Zapf,
1994; Greiner & Leitner, 1989; Zapf, 1993). Work or labour is a
multidisciplinary concept. Hacker (1973, 1998) and Volpert (1974) argued that
EMOTION WORK
377
the psychological component of work is the work activity and from the
perspective of action theory it is the psychic regulation of work actions. Through
various cognitive processes, action theory links the objective work environment
to behaviour. To describe job requirements, three aspects are distinguished: the
regulation requirements of a task, regulation possibilities, and regulation
problems (for details, see Frese & Zapf, 1994; Zapf, 1993).
From an action-oriented perspective, regulation requirements are related to
properties of the hierarchic-sequential organization of action and comprise the
complexity of decisions, the number and connectedness of goals and sub-goals,
and the extent of conscious vs. automatic regulation processes. Regulation
possibilities refer to the concept of control. Control means having an impact on
ones conditions and on ones activities in correspondence with some goal.
Decision possibilities exist with regard to the sequence of the action steps, the
timeframe, and the content of goals and plans (Frese, 1987). Several authors have
operationalized various aspects of control, such as task control referring to
decision possibilities regarding the goals to be carried out, the sequence of plans
to be performed, and the sequence of feedback information processing. Time
control, for example, refers to both when and for how long a certain task is
performed (e.g. Frese & Zapf, 1994, Semmer, et al. 1995; Wall, Jackson,
Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996; Zapf, 1993). Regulation problems are an action
theory conceptualization of work stressors. The stressors are differentiated
according to how they disturb the regulation of actions (Frese & Zapf, 1994;
Greiner & Leitner, 1989; Semmer, 1984).
There is evidence that regulation requirements, regulation possibilities, and
regulation problems are differentially related to health and well-being and that
this differentiation helps to overcome a stimulus-response framework where
every characteristic of the job has negative consequences and where doing
nothing would be the best concept to avoid stress at work. In contrast, action
theory proposes that human beings usually try to actively cope with their
environment. In this sense, job design should support this active approach by
providing 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 of
personality enhancement (Hacker, 1973, 1998; see also Frese & Zapf, 1994).
This means that they enable one to develop cognitive and social skills, and further
satisfaction and self-esteem. They follow the personenvironment fit model
(Edwards & van Harrison, 1993): They are positive as long as they are matched
by personal prerequisites and they become negative when they exceed them.
Research shows that regulation possibilities (control) typically show a direct
positive effect as well as a moderating effect between stressors and strains (e.g.
Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). In contrast, regulation problems (stressors) have
negative health effects. Stressors are in a sense independent of the person
environment fit, because people want challenging tasks, but they do not need a
378
ZAPF ET AL.
minimal amount of conflicts, time pressure or superfluous organizational

problems to feel happy.
Using an action theory framework, the psychological focus of the present
study was on the regulation of emotion display according to a goal given by the
organization. In this sense, emotion work is part of intentional and goal-directed
behaviour. From the organization, an employee receives an order to carry out a
certain task in a certain way. This includes behaving according to the emotional
display rules of the organization. The order is then redefined into a subjective
goal (Hackman, 1970). Emotion work usually refers to a sub-goal of a higher
order goal and requires certain emotion display during an interaction with a
client. Ideally, emotion work is done in the automatic mode, that is, the emotion
is automatically shown in the social interaction as required (cf. Scherer &
Wallbott, 1990). In this sense, the concept of emotion work differs from
approaches that investigate emotions as a response to a variety of organizational
conditions (e.g. Basch & Fisher, 1998).
Emotion work poses various demands on the worker. This view considers the
job requirement aspects of emotion work and is congruent with the idea that
objective job characteristics or job stressors created by the organization affect the
workers in various ways (Frese & Zapf, 1988, 1994; Spector, 1992). This
approach conforms to the behaviour requirement approach in job analysis
research (Hackman, 1970). Because our goal was to develop an instrument that
should 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 we
used these concepts for the development of items. However, because of the
empirical findings of Best et al. (1997), Brotheridge and Lee (1998), and
Grandey (1998) we expected that the items of emotional requirements would
represent at least two factors, namely the frequency and the variety/intensity of
emotion work. We did not model the duration aspect. The reason is that the
emotion work components were developed in the context of stress research
where the frequency of emotion work seems to be most relevant. If intensity only
is measured there should not necessarily be a strong relation with variables such
as burnout, because the more intense emotions could be more seldom. Similarly,
if variety of emotions is measured, the problem occurs that a high variety in
general 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, for
example, how often both positive and negative emotions have to be displayed.
In addition to the work of Hochschild (1983), we drew upon concepts of
emotion work that put the influence and management of clients emotions into
the foreground (e.g. Brucks, 1998; Strauss, Farahaugh, Suczek, & Wiener, 1980;
Strazdins, 1998). To be able to manage clients emotions, the accurate perception
of the clients emotions is an important prerequisite. This is also in accord with
communication psychology (Riggio, 1986) and the literature on emotional
intelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1998). Riggio operationalized basic social skills
EMOTION WORK
379
that are related to the regulation of emotions and differentiated sensitivity,

expression, and control of emotions. Expression and control refer to the
emotional requirements described previously. In addition, we operationalized
sensitivity requirements as the necessity to be sensitive and consider the
emotions of clients. It can be expected that sensitivity requirements are positively
correlated with emotional requirements because the expression of an emotion
during an interaction usually is dependent on the emotion of the interaction
partner. Only in short script-like interactions might a person express emotions
without 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 ones emotion display is one
of the important issues of emotion work. He differentiated regulated emotion
management from autonomous emotion management. Referring to the differentiation of various aspects of job control (regulation possibilities) mentioned
earlier, emotion work control was operationalized as a special case of job control
with regard to the display of emotions (in the sense of Tolichs autonomous
emotion management) and interaction control as a special case with regard to the
underlying social interactions where emotions have to be displayed. Emotion
work control refers to the extent to which an employee can decide whether or not
to show a desired emotion. Emotion work control is probably lower when display
rules have been made explicit in an organization, but this should not be
necessarily 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 are
empowered to deviate from the rules. As described previously, some authors
have operationalized emotion work by operationalizing aspects of the underlying
social situation (e.g Adelmann, 1995; Morris & Feldman, 1997). In a similar way
we operationalized the control of the social interaction, that is the degree of
influence an employee has in social interactions with clients. An example is
whether an employee can decide when to stop an interaction with a client. There
are several reasons why we included the concepts of emotion work control and
interaction control. First, they are part of the action theory framework we applied
to 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 some
evidence that the moderating effect of job control applied when emotional
dissonance is involved and that this effect might be even stronger when the
control concept is matched to the stressor (cf. the analogy of the matchhypothesis of stressors and social support of Cohen & Wills, 1985).
Finally, emotional dissonance was considered as an emotion regulation
problem. As in most of the other approaches, it is defined as the mismatch
between felt emotions and the organizationally desired expression of these
emotions. We considered emotional dissonance as an external demand rather
than a reaction to emotion display or a behavioural strategy. One could argue
380
ZAPF ET AL.
that, given a certain requirement for frequency and content (positive or negative
emotion), it should then depend on the employee and his or her personality to
what 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 emotional
exhaustion. However, there are qualitative differences in social situations that are
not sufficiently described by the parameters for display rules. This is because the
display rules describe the desired state of emotion display, but they do not
comprise anything about how often individuals are exposed to situations where
they have to show the required emotions. Moreover, they do not reflect other
factors, namely how positive or negative the social interaction is, which may
influence what people feel and whether this fits to the emotion required by the
display rule for this particular situation. Compare, for example, a nurse in a
childrens hospital and a nurse in a retirement home. The display rules of
showing friendliness and empathy may be the same, and frequency and duration
of interactions may be similar, leading to similar required display rates of
positive emotions, but the nurse in the retirement home may encounter many
more situations where an average person feels disgust or anger. Similarly,
cashiers of a supermarket chain may all have the same requirements to display
positive emotions to customers, and the number of customers determining the
frequency of emotional requirements may be similar. However, depending on
where a supermarket is located, there may be differing frequencies of encounters
with complaining or otherwise negatively behaving customers, which is a good
predictor of negative emotions of the employee (Doucet, 1998). Consequently,
the number of situations where gaps between felt and desired emotions appear
may differ considerably. The discrepancy between what an average person is
likely to feel and what the respective display rule is, varies from situation to
situation. Therefore, the aspects covered by the concept of emotional dissonance
are not covered by the frequency and other parameters of emotional requirements
because they all refer to the display rules and to more formal characteristics of
social interaction, such as frequency and duration, and not to the quality of the
actual situations and the resulting differing discrepancies between display rules
and 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 of
emotion refers to facial expression, bodily behaviour, and voice. These are the
visible aspects of the emotional system (Scherer, 1997; Scherer & Wallbott,
1990). If this is so, could then the display of emotions not be described by
sensorimotor processes? The regulation of sensorimotor processes is, for
example, a part of the action theory approach mentioned previously (Frese &
Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1998). According to action theory, sensorimotor processes
are highly automatized. They are usually carried out in the automatic mode, that
EMOTION WORK
381
is, without conscious attention. This is also so with respect to the sensorimotor
processes in the expression of emotion (Ekman, 1984; Izard, 1977; Scherer &
Wallbott, 1990). If a certain emotion is felt, then the expression of this emotion
automatically occurs whereby social competence may play a moderator role. If
an emotion that has to be displayed, is not felt, then problems occur. In highly
standardized situations it may be easy to fake. If this is not the case, then the true
feelings 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, for
example, for therapists in encounter therapy (Rogers, 1951). Hochschild (1983)
also raised the problems of surface acting and discussed that even in services
such as airlines deep acting is required. Employees are required to feel the
emotions they should feel because otherwise there is the danger that it would not
work. Findings in social psychology showed that people can sometimes tell when
someone is faking a friendly face (Ekman & Friesen, 1982). Therefore,
emotional dissonance as a job stressor should lead to both surface acting and deep
acting as a reaction, implying that emotion work cannot be reduced to the
sensorimotor regulation of emotional expression. This also shows the difference
between emotional dissonance as a stressor and as a reaction. If deep acting was
successful there is no internal state of emotional dissonance (emotional
dissonance as a reaction or dimension of emotion work). However, deep acting
can be a strategy to deal with the job stressor of emotional dissonance.
Finally, emotional dissonance has to be discussed with reference to the
differentiation 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 and
therefore has exchange value (p. 7). Nerdinger discussed in detail that, from the
economic point of view, the work of the service provider is exchanged for
money. However, in many cases the full service requires an interaction as if there
were not an economic but a family-like relation. A therapist is expected to be
truly 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. Nerdinger
pointed out that the social interaction is not only a means to deliver the service but
is part of the service product. Thus, a service employee may face contradictory
expectations given by the personal interaction with the client (who, for example,
may want advice) and the economic interests of his or her employer (who may
insist on high sales). Moreover, the requirements of the organization itself may
be 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 can
hypothesize that such contradictory job requirements are a source of emotional
dissonance in any kind of person-related work.
382
ZAPF ET AL.
In sum, applying the concept of action theory to emotion work first leads to
integrating the special control concepts described earlier. Second, it helps to
understand that emotion work is not necessarily negative but has also positive
implications. To explore the construct validity of the instruments developed for
the present studies, we developed several hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Emotion work is a multidimensional

construct
Within emotion work, emotional requirements, emotion control, and emotional

dissonance can be distinguished. The differences in these concepts have been
described previously. Empirically, this hypothesis is supported by most findings
in the literature so far with regard to emotional requirements and emotional
dissonance (e.g. Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998; Morris & Feldman,
1997). We are not aware of studies that operationalized a concept equivalent to
emotion work control or interaction control. Also, the fact that studies that did
not differentiate between various aspects of emotion work did not find the
expected results (Adelmann, 1995), supports the view that emotion work is not a
homogeneous construct.
Hypothesis 2(a): Emotional requirement scales are positively

correlated
It is expected that the various aspects of emotional requirements are highly

correlated, whereas emotional requirements and emotional dissonance should
show a positive but lower correlation. The reason is that all emotional
requirements are a function of the interaction time with clients and the existence
of display rules. In contrast to Morris and Feldman (1996), most of the items of
the present study have a frequency component. The more interactions a person
has with a client, the more this person is supposed to show positive and negative
emotions. In addition, the sensitivity requirements should also be high.
Sensitivity requirements should be positively correlated with the other scales
because the expression of emotion should in most cases be dependent on the
emotions of the interaction partner,which have to be adequately perceived.
Hypothesis 2(b): Emotional requirement scales are also

positively correlated with emotional dissonance
The frequency of emotional dissonance also depends on the frequency of

interactions. Therefore, emotional dissonance should be positively correlated
with the emotional requirement scales. However, because emotional dissonance
is also a function of how pleasant or unpleasant the social interactions are, the
correlations are expected to be lower than the correlations amongst the emotional
requirement scales, which all mainly depend on the interaction frequency. In
EMOTION WORK
383
addition, Morris and Feldman (1996) proposed that the higher the frequency of
emotion display, the higher is the chance that emotions have to be displayed that
do not fit the emotions felt. A similar argument applies for the variety of
emotions. For variety of emotions it can be added that it is more likely that
employees have problems with negative emotions compared to positive
emotions. With regard to the correlation between emotional requirement
variables and emotional dissonance, the empirical findings are mixed. Grandey
(1998) found a correlation between suppressing negative emotions and
emotional dissonance, but not between expressing positive emotions and
emotional dissonance. Also, Brotheridge and Lee (1998) found a correlation
between frequency of emotion display and emotional dissonance.
Hypothesis 2(c): Emotion control is negatively related with

emotional dissonance
There is evidence in the stress literature that control is negatively related to job
stressors. Abraham (1998) was able to demonstrate such a relationship for job
autonomy and emotional dissonance. This negative relation should also occur for
specific 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 negative

relations between emotional requirements and strain
and well-being
Much of the literature addressed the negative effects of emotion work (e.g
Adelmann, 1995; Hochschild, 1983). Most often scholars cited the negative
relations with burnout, hypothesizing that emotion work would increase
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and would reduce personal
accomplishment. Some authors discussed relationships with poor self-esteem
and depression. Hochschild, in particular, referred to the problem of alienation
from ones true feelings. A few authors, however, also referred to potential
positive 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 not
either positive or negative. Rather, a challenging job may comprise positive job
content variables such as job control, complexity, or variety at work, but
challenging jobs often go along with high quantitative workload and uncertainty
at work. Similarly, it is not assumed that emotion work is generally either
negative 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
384
ZAPF ET AL.
required this should lead to psychological strain, especially to emotional

exhaustion (Morris & Feldman, 1996). When emotional requirements exceed
certain limits the likelihood increases that the emotions that have to be expressed
do not match the emotions that are felt at that moment. That is, in line with the
personenvironment fit model (e.g. Edwards & van Harrison, 1993), if emotional
requirements are frequent and last for a long time, their effects on well-being
should be negative. This assumption is supported by findings in the burnout
literature. Maslach (1982) stated that frequent, intense, and charging face-to-face
interactions were associated with higher levels of emotional exhaustion. Cordes
and Dougherty (1993) in their review reported that longer interactions with
clients 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 correlations 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 be
due to the fact that they did not directly refer to the frequency or duration of
emotional display but to the underlying social interaction. Although empirical
findings are mixed here, it is assumed that variables representing emotional
requirements are positively correlated with emotional exhaustion and other
variables of psychological strain.
Based on the literature on the affiliation motive it can be assumed that dealing
with other people and expressing emotions when interacting with these people
satisfies affiliation, status, and recognition needs, for example, by showing
altruistic behaviour (e.g. Bierhoff, 1990; Hill, 1987). In many cases, the
expression of emotion can be thought of as a spontaneous process experienced
not to be effortful at all (cf. Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Scherer & Wallbott,
1990), but contributing to a social situation with positive consequences for the
employee concerned. The intentional expression of positive emotions usually
increases the probability of the interaction partner to show reciprocal positive
emotions in return (Wiemann & Giles, 1997). This can be perceived as positive
feedback contributing to the employees satisfaction and self-esteem. Adelmann
(1995) referred to the facial feedback hypothesis to argue for positive effects of
emotion work. There is at least some evidence for the weak form of this
hypothesis: In an experiment, Strack, Stepper, and Martin (1988) showed that
participants whose muscle groups necessary for laughing were stimulated found
a movie more funny in comparison to a group whose laughing muscles were
inhibited.
There is, indeed, some evidence of the positive implications of emotion work.
On a qualitative level, Tolich (1993) described supermarket clerks who enjoyed
showing prescribed emotions in the form of jokes or entertainment of customers
who chose their checkout lines. Stenross and Kleinman (1989) reported that
detectives positively assessed interrogations with criminal suspects because this
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 job
satisfaction. Based on these considerations and empirical findings it was
expected that emotional requirement variables are positively correlated with
personal accomplishment, self-esteem, and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: Emotion work control and

interaction control have a positive effect on health
Emotion work-related control is conceptualized as a special case of job

control concerning the possibility to decide whether or not one likes to express
emotions 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 related
to well-being. Therefore, it can be expected that this is also true for the special
cases of emotion work control and interaction control. There is no direct
empirical evidence so far. However, on a qualitative level, it has been shown that
the exertion of control in social interactions was perceived to be positive and that
employees struggled for control in interactions with clients (Rafaeli, 1989;
Tolich, 1993).
Hypothesis 5: Emotional dissonance is negatively

related with health
Hochschild (1983) was the first who described the negative effects when positive
emotions have to be displayed when either nothing is felt or if the felt emotions
are even in contrast to the displayed emotions. Hochschild asserted that if
employees do not feel what they ought to feel, they may blame themselves and
feel 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 is
likely to go along with decreased job satisfaction. Rafaeli and Sutton (1987)
argued that emotional dissonance is a form of personrole conflict (Kahn et al.,
1964), which means that one has to do things that are against ones better
judgement. Because role conflict is a strong predictor of emotional exhaustion
(cf. the meta-analysis of Lee & Ashforth, 1996), it was hypothesized that
emotional dissonance is also a strong predictor of exhaustion. All in all, the
clearest empirical relation between emotion work variables and psychological
strain occurred for emotional dissonance and emotional exhaustion (Abraham,
1998; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Grandey, 1998; Morris & Feldman, 1997) and
depersonalization (Grandey, 1998). Mostly, no relationship was found for
relations with personal accomplishment (Grandey, 1998). Empirical evidence on
the relation between emotional dissonance and job satisfaction is mixed. Morris
and Feldman found a negative relation between emotional dissonance and job
satisfaction, whereas Grandey (1998) did not.
386
ZAPF ET AL.
METHOD
Samples
The following analyses were based on three samples. The first sample consisted
of employees working in a home for handicapped children and other social
service institutions (N=83) in South Germany: 80% were women, which is
typical for the human services; average age was 38 years; 58% worked in the
childrens home and had direct client contact (nurses, team leaders, social
workers), 19% worked also in the childrens home, but had no direct client
contact (administration, technical staff). Moreover, 24% were employees with
direct client contact in a hospital, and in other homes for problem children and
handicapped children. As in the other studies, participation was voluntary.
The second sample was collected in the hotel business. With the help of the
Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrung (professional food association), 27 hotels were
contacted and 867 questionnaires were sent off. We received 175 questionnaires,
which corresponded to a response rate of 20.3%. Discussion with our personal
contacts with hotel representatives revealed that the low response rate was
mostly due to heavy workload of the hotel employees. Most of the participants
were employed in hotels as front-line officers, waiters, or waitresses and other
hotel professions; 71% were women and 80% of the sample were between 18
and 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 to
the hotel business.
The third sample consisted of 250 participants employed in 14 call centres of
various firms with an overall response rate of 50%. This sample consisted of
employees 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 some
kind of university degree; 76% received calls but did not call clients themselves
(inbound), the others mostly both called clients and received calls (inbound and
outbound; details in Isic, Dormann, & Zapf, in press).
Procedure
In Study 1, we first developed a list of items covering the constructs of emotion

work described earlier. Then we gave a first draft of the questionnaire to nurses
and social education workers who gave feedback with regard to the applicability
and comprehensibility of the items. This process was repeated and the resulting
questionnaire was administered to the first sample. Starting with this version and
the first empirical results of Sample 1, a version of the questionnaire was
developed for the hotel business sample. During this process it became clear that
EMOTION WORK
387
part of the developed items were domain specific, whereas another part seemed
to be applicable for a variety of professions. In the hotel business, the first draft of
the questionnaire was discussed with 10 persons from various service branches.
They received the questionnaire and were also interviewed. A revised version
was then applied to a sample of hotel service students (n=26). These students
were asked to fill in the questionnaire and to comment on the applicability and
comprehensibility of the items. These comments and the psychometric results led
to the final version used for the hotel sample. This version consisted of domain
specific and general items. The general items of Sample 2 and some newly
developed general items were applied in the third sample. Here, the questionnaire
was much shorter than in the previous versions, because it was intended to
develop a short instrument which can be applied in all areas with person-related
work 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 were
included in the study.
Job satisfaction was measured by the Kunin-item in Study 2. According to
Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), a reliability of 0.57 was assumed for this
single-item measure. In the other studies a job satisfaction scale developed by
Semmer and Baillod, (1991) was used. It consisted of the Kunin item and various
other items which were developed on the background of the job satisfaction
model of Bruggemann (1974). High scores mean satisfaction, low scores mean
dissatisfaction including a resigned attitude towards ones job.
Psychosomatic complaints, irritation, and self-esteem were measured using
scales developed by Mohr (1986, 1991). The psychosomatic complaints scale
consisted of a list of 20 psychosomatic symptoms such as nervousness,
headaches, tension, high blood pressure, and insomnia. Irritation consisted of
items referring to anger and not being able to stop thinking about ones work.
Finally, self-esteem was measured with items like I am proud of my
achievements. The pychosomatic complaints and self-esteem items were
answered on a 5-point scale, whereas a 7-point scale was used for irritation.
Burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment) was measured using the Maslach Burnout InventoryGerman
version of Bssing and Perrar (1992). Emotional exhaustion measures ones
feeling of being burnt out, frustrated, and perceiving working with people to be
very demanding. Depersonalization comprises the tendency to treat clients like
objects and to become indifferent and apathetic with regard to clients. Reduced
Personal Accomplishment includes the feeling of having reduced energy to do
388
ZAPF ET AL.
things and of not being able to meet ones aspirations. The burnout items were
answered on a 7-point scale. The descriptive data of the scales used for validation
purposes are summarized in Table 1.
RESULTS
In the first study, because of sample size, we used exploratory factor analyses
EFA (principal components analyses and varimax rotation) to test whether the
items behaved as predicted by the theoretical concept. In the second and third
study we applied confirmatory factor analyses CFA using LISREL 8.3 of
Jreskog and Srbom (1993), however, also in an exploratory manner. The
results of Study 1 were used as starting models.
For Study 1, EFA showed that the items for emotional requirements loaded on
three 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 express
pleasant emotions towards your clients?). The second factor comprised items
referring to the variety of emotion display and the need to deal with negative
emotions of clients (example items: How often does it occur in your job that you
have to express unpleasant emotions towards your clients? How often does it
occur in your job that you have to consider negative moods of your clients?). As
expected, 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 about
the clients current feelings is a job requirement. Moreover, a factor for
emotional dissonance appeared consisting of items referring to displaying
emotions not felt as well as to the suppression of felt emotions (example item:
A can openly display his/her feelings towards clientsB has to display
feelings towards clients which do not match his/her true feelings. What is your
job like?). Finally, a factor comprising items referring to control with regard to
social situations where emotion work is taking place was developed (example
item: Is it up to you how long you pay attention to a client?). Contrary to our
intention it was not possible to develop a scale for emotion work control. The
items of this scale loaded on other factors as well, particularly on the emotional
dissonance and the interaction control factor.
In Study 2, we used CFA for scale development. We started with the solution
of Study 1 and tried to model a positive emotion display factor and a negative
emotion/variety factor. Moreover, we again tried to model a factor for emotion
work control. The first attempts showed a low fit. Again, it was not possible to
develop a factor for emotion work control, but for interaction control. Second, it
turned out that the emotional requirement items fell into four groups: positive
emotions display, negative/variety of emotions, sensitivity requirements, and
items which referred to showing sympathy as a job requirement. The inspection
of the sympathy items showed that these items were difficult to locate on a
2.17
2.13
2.46
5.18
5.17
4.36
Job satisfaction
4.37
4.40
4.37
0.85
1.03
1.28
0.42
0.41
0.44
0.73
0.64
0.75
1.09
1.17
1.20
0.82
1.07
0.98
0.57
0.95
0.98
0.84
0.85
1.24
SD
0.46**
0.50**
0.72**
0.21
0.12
0.25**
0.49**
0.70**
0.64**
0.43**
0.52**
0.56**
0.06
0.05
0.30**
0.50**
0 .65**
0.58**
(0.87)
(0.85)
(0.92)
0.51**
0.40**
0.53**
0.25*
0.04
0.14**
0.36**
0.39 **
0.33**
0.37**
0.37**
0.30**
0.02
0.05
0.13*
(0.43)
(0.67)
(0.65)
0.12
0.22*
0.34**
0.17
0.23
0.39
0.26*
0.06
0.30**
0.15
0.07
0.15*
(0.79)
(0.80)
(0.78)
0.21
0.23**
0.40**
0.50**
0.25**
0.29**
0.56**
0.58**
0.62**
(0.81)
(0.88)
(0.89)
0.33**
0.30**
0.50**
0.28**
0.18*
0.22*
(0.91)
(0.91)
(0.92)
Emotional Depersonal- Personal

Irritation Psychosomatic
Exhaustion
ization Accomplishment
Complaints
0.02
0.26**
0.19**
(0.87)
(0.71)
(0.69)
Selfesteem
(0.75)
a
(0.86)
Job
Satisfaction
Cronbachs alpha in parentheses; *P < .05, **P < .01. For each set of 3 rows, row I: childrens home (N=83); row II: hotel business (N=175); row III: call
centre (N=250); a single Kunin-item; according to Wanous et al. (1997), estimated reliability = .57.
Self-esteem
2.97
2.89
2.71
Psychosomatic complaints
Irritation
4.97
4.57
4.75
1.56
2.14
2.32
2.38
2.20
2.57
Personal accomplishment
Depersonalization
Burnout:
Emotional exhaustion
Mean
TABLE 1
Descriptive data of study variables
EMOTION WORK
389
389
390
0.61
0.47
0.58
Negative
Emotions
0.68
0.62
0.78
0.81
0.43
Emotional
Dissonance
0.66
0.78
0.85
0.23
Sensitivity
Requirements
0.59
0.63
0.23
0.33
Routineness
0.34
0.18
0.49
0.95
0.15
0.17
Interaction
Control
Chi2 (df = 148) = 215.03 (P < .01), RMSEA (Root mean square error of approximation) = 0.046, GFI (Goodness of fit) = 0.91, AGFI (adjusted goodness
of fit) = 0.87, NFI (normed fit index) = 0.82,NNFI (non-normed fit index) = 0.91.
Eaa1 Requirement to express pleasant emotions

0.60
Eaa3 Bring customer in good mood
0.79
Ea1 Show intensive feelings vs. show superficial feelings
0.25
Eaa2 Requirement to express unpleasant emotions
Eavl Express different emotions depending on situation
0.56
Eav2 Express both pleasant and unpleasant emotions vs.
express only either pleasant or unpleasant emotions
Eau1 Requirement to suppress feelings
0.22
Eau2 Important to suppress feelings vs. meaningless which
feelings vs. meaningless
Ead1 Display emotions which do not correspond to inner
feelings
Ead2 Display positive emotions while feeling indifferent
Ead3 Force yourself to show certain feelings
Eas1 Requirement to be sensitive to the feelings of customers
Eas2 Important to know what a customer feels
Eas3 Important to put oneself in the customers position
Ear1 After a short time possible to handle emotions routinely
Ear2 Contacts with customers always similar
Eah1 Can you interrupt an interaction with a customer?
Eah2 Can finish interaction with customer vs. dependent on
customers wishes
Eah3 Interaction depends on the customers mood
Eah4 Duration of the interaction independent of the
customers feelings
Positive
Emotions
TABLE 2
Result of the confirmatory factor analysis of Study 3 (call centre)

390
ZAPF ET AL.
0.59
0.92
0.63
0.95
0.54
0.87
0.74
0.69
0.97
1.04
0.85
0.73
0.6
0.92
0.73
0.79
0.82
SD
0.27*
0.00
0.15*
0.25**
0.18
0.47**
0.31**
0.58**
0.60**
0.36**
0.40**
0.59**
0.20
0.28**
(0.90)
(0.81)
(0.52)
Positive
Emotions
0.21a
0.32**
0.06
0.24**
0.19
0.41**
0.17**
0.63**
0.36**
0.22**
0.57**
(0.81)
(0.65)
(0.56)
Negative
Emotions
0.23**
0.44**
0.59**
(0.69)
0.30**
0.19**
0.16*
0.34**
0.10
0.52**
0.38**
(0.92)
(0.80)
(0.82)
0.21a
0.07
0.30**
0.14*
(0.90)
(0.78)
(0.79)
0.03
(0.54)
(0.90)
(0.70)
(0.51)
Showing
Sensitivity Emotional Routineness Interaction
Sympathy Requirements Dissonance
Control
Cronbachs alpha in parentheses; *P < .05, **P < .01. a P = .06. For each set of 3 rows, row I: childrens home (N=83); row II: hotel business (N=175);
row III: call centre (N=250).
2.79
2.80
1.92
Interaction control
3.09
Routineness
3.65
2.89
3.64
Emotional dissonance
4.01
2.78
3.43
2.08
3.06
1.85
2.67
3.61
3.99
3.58
Mean
Sensitivity requirements
Showing sympathy
Negative emotions
Display of:
Positive emotions
Variable
TABLE 3
Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of emotion work variables
EMOTION WORK
391
391
392
ZAPF ET AL.
positive-negative emotions dimension. Showing positive emotions obviously

meant to show emotions to make clients feel happy. Showing sympathy meant to
feel with a client who for some reason feels negative. Showing negative emotions
referred to negative social interactions, for example, talking to a guest who was
molesting another guest. Little problems occurred for the modelling of the
emotional dissonance and sensitivity requirements factors. Finally, it was
possible to model the interaction control factor. We stopped model trimming
when the factor loadings were significant and when there were theoretical
reasons for not eliminating items with cross-loadings.
Finally, in the third sample, a positive emotions display and negative
emotions/variety factor, sensitivity requirements, emotional dissonance and
interaction control could be modelled. In addition, there was a factor routineness
of emotional display" consisting of two items. The emotion work control factor
could, again, not be modelled. The result of the confirmatory factor analysis of
Study 3 is shown in Table 2. Using the CFA procedure in an exploratory manner
we used the modification index of LISREL for model trimming. The
modification index indicates where model restrictions do not fit with the data. It
is suggested that modification indices higher than 5 indicate a substantial misfit
(Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). Therefore, we included all cross-loadings indicated
by modification indices higher than 5. This procedure led to six cross-loadings of
which two are relevant. The intensity of emotions item also showed a high
negative loading on the routineness factor indicating that intensity might also be
considered different from the frequency of positive emotion display (cf. the
results of Brotheridge & Lee, 1998). Second, expression of different emotions
also showed a high loading on the positive emotion display factor. Table 3 shows
that it was possible to develop the scales for emotion work with satisfactory
reliabilities (Hypothesis 1). Although some cross-loadings occurred in all three
studies we consider discriminant validity to be satisfactory.
According to Hypothesis 2a we expected that the emotional requirement
scales would show significant positive correlations. This was so in all cases with
correlations ranging from 0.22 to 0.63. Second, it was also expected that the
emotional requirement scales would also be positively correlated with emotional
dissonance (Hypothesis 2b). This was the case for Studies 2 and 3; for Study 1
the correlations were in the expected direction with two of the three correlations
significant at the 10% level. Finally, according to Hypothesis 2c, emotional
dissonance was expected to be negatively correlated with interaction control.
This was the case in Study 3. In Study 1 the correlation failed to reach
significance level, while in Study 2 the correlation was not significant.
The third hypothesis was that the emotional requirement scales would show
positive and negative correlations with strain and well-being. With one exception
(display of positive emotions in Study 2), all emotional requirement scales were
correlated with emotional exhaustion (Table 4). In Study 3, all emotional
requirement scales were also correlated with depersonalization. For Study 2, this
.10
.05
.08
.05
.08
.07
.04
.05
.20*
.03
.09
.18*
.12
.10
.08
.43**
.11
.09
.18
.41**
.19**
.37**
.21**
.15*
Negative
Emotions
.05
.11
.14
.09
.27**
.24 **
.17 *
Showing
Sympathy
.02
.02
.19**
.02
.03
.07
.05
.23**
.22**
.05
.18*
.21**
.39**
.44**
.16 **
.02
.19*
.17**
.24*
.27**
.22**
Sensitivity
Requirements
.30**
.12
.47**
.24*
.01
.03
.35**
.36**
.40**
.45**
.27**
.26**
.11
.26**
.10
.31*
.37*
.40**
.42**
.33**
.48**
Emotional
Dissonance
.02
.08
_
.16*
.09
.09
.03
.11
Routineness
.04
.05
.24**
.01
.12
.01
.09
.09
.16*
.25*
.04
.19**
.00
.02
.03
.01
.06
.14*
.14
.02
.19**
Interaction
Control
* P < .05, **P < .0. For each set of 3 rows, row I: childrens home (N = 83); row II: hotel business (N = 175); row III: call centre (N = 250).
.04
.06
.08
Job satisfaction
Self-esteem
.02
.14
.05
.10
.05
.17*
.38**
.44**
.28**
.12
.07
.13*
25*
.09
.15*
Psychosomatic complaints
Irritation
Personal accomplishment
Depersonalization
Emotional exhaustion
Positive
Emotions
TABLE 4
Correlations between emotion work and psychological strain and well-being
EMOTION WORK
393
393
394
ZAPF ET AL.
was the case in three of four cases. For Studies 2 and 3, sensitivity requirements
were positively correlated with irritation and psychosomatic complaints. In
addition, display of positive emotions and sensitivity requirements were
positively correlated with personal accomplishment, indicating the positive
effects of emotion work. However, most of the correlations with self-esteem and
job satisfaction were not significant.
In Hypothesis 4 we assumed negative relations between control and
psychological strain. This hypothesis was mostly rejected because it was not
possible to develop a scale for emotion work control. For interaction control, 6
out of 21 correlations were significant and in the expected direction.
Finally, as expected, emotional dissonance showed the clearest effects on
psychological strain. In all three samples, high correlations appeared with
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, irritation, and psychosomatic
complaints. In addition, in two of the three samples, the expected negative
correlation with job satisfaction appeared.
DISCUSSION
In this article we argued that traditional job stress analysis instruments are
not able to cover the full range of job stressors frequent in work where interaction
with clients is a central part. We described the concept of emotion work,
first introduced by Hochschild (1983), as the job requirement to display
organizationally desired emotions. Following action theory-based conceptions
of job analysis, we differentiated between emotional regulation requirements,
emotional regulation possibilities, and emotional regulation problems. Based
on three empirical studies in a handicapped childrens home, in the hotel
business, and in call centres, we were able to develop scales for the requirement
to display positive emotions, the requirement to display negative emotions
including also a high variety of emotions, and sensitivity requirements. In
one study, a factor requirement to show sympathy was found. In all three
studies we were able to develop scales for interaction control, but not for emotion
work control. Finally, a scale for emotional dissonance could be developed. The
scales showed satisfactory reliabilities. Discriminant validity could be
demonstrated, although some items showed cross-loadings on other factors. This
should be improved in future studies. Most of the hypotheses regarding construct
validity were supported by the data. Emotional regulation requirement scales
were both positively and negatively related to various variables of psychological
strain and well-being, supporting the view that person-related work isas is
object-related worknot negative per se. As in most of the other empirical
studies, emotional dissonance has proven to be a stressor that shows negative
relationships with health. Finally, interaction control partly showed the expected
negative correlations with psychological strain and positive relations with job
satisfaction.
EMOTION WORK
395
Several issues are noticeable in the present studies. First, the studies support
the proposition that emotion work is a multidimensional phenomenon (e.g.
Morris & Feldman, 1996). They show that sub-constructs of emotion work have
partly contradictory relations with health and well-being, thus explaining the
failure to find correlations with dependent variables when overall scales for
emotion work were used (e.g. Adelmann, 1995).
Expressing positive emotions showed both positive and negative relations
with health variables. The positive correlations of the requirement to express
positive emotions with personal accomplishment supports the view that
Hochschilds proposition of emotion work to be alienating and stressful is onesided (cf. Stenross & Kleinman, 1989; Tolich, 1993; Wharton, 1993). It is likely
that the expression of positive emotions is reinforced by positive customer
reactions and is generally valued both by the customers and the management
(Doucet, 1998). On the other hand, the failure to find consistent correlations with
job satisfaction and self-esteem obviously requires further research. It could
either be because of methodological problems or because the emotional
components of social interactions are of significantly less importance compared
to cognitive task aspects. Variety/negative emotions showed more negative
relations compared to the display of positive emotions. This supports the
qualitative findings of Stenross and Kleinman (1989), who found that showing
sympathy and dealing with negative emotions of others was a stressful
experience for detectives. On the other hand, it can be assumed that dealing with
complicated interactions where negative emotions have to be handled can also be
a source of feelings of personal accomplishment when this is considered to be a
genuine part of ones job, as in the case of employees of the handicapped
childrens home.
In all, it is remarkable that all our studies differentiated between the display of
positive emotions and a factor either referring to the variety of emotions or to
displaying or treating negative emotions. Obviously, variety of emotions
becomes relevant when both positive and negative emotions have to be displayed
in contrast to having to display only positive emotions. For the samples analysed
in this article, it can be excluded that some of our participants are only required to
show negative emotions in their jobs. Rather, practically all participants had to
show positive emotions, which is demonstrated by the higher means of the
positive emotions scales compared to the negative emotions scales. If the display
of positive emotions is the starting point, then the requirement to display a high
variety of emotions means to have to display negative emotions as well.
Therefore, this scale can both be interpreted as the display of negative emotions
or the display of a high variety of emotions. The data also show that the
requirement to show a high variety of emotions does not guarantee that they can
more easily be matched than more homogeneous display requirements, as
implied by Morris and Feldman (1996). Rather, this scale obviously refers to
three problems: First, it seems to be more difficult to feel the emotion if a high
396
ZAPF ET AL.
variety of emotion display is required than if only one type of emotion should be
shown. Second, adaptation processes to show the various emotions may be
effortful, and third and most likely, in most cases the display of negative
emotions may be negative per se because they often indicate unpleasant social
interactions.
Against expectations, it was not possible to develop an emotion work control
scale. Actually, it was possible to develop scales with sufficient internal
consistency in the various samples, but the scale lacked discriminant validity.
The items for this scale also loaded on the interaction control factor and on the
emotional dissonance factor. In further research the item wording should be
improved to make the scale methodologically more sound. However, there
remains the problem of theoretical overlap, which makes achieving discriminant
validity difficult. This is necessarily so between interaction control and emotion
work control because they both were conceptualized to be sub-concepts of the
general control concept. However, the main problem lies in the discriminant
validity between emotion work control and emotional dissonance. Emotional
dissonance, as do all job stressors, implies a minimum of non-control. Otherwise
the stressor would simply be avoided. These conceptual reasons may make it
difficult to develop a scale with sufficient discriminant validity.
As in most of the other studies, it was possible to develop measures for
emotional dissonance with good scale properties and the expected correlations
with other emotion work and health variables. However, further research should
investigate the conceptualization of emotional dissonance as an objective
stressor, which could be supported by observation and peer evaluation.
The data suggest that the analysis of emotion work is a neglected area in
organizational 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 either
positive or negative. Rather, emotion display and sensitivity requirements are
related to emotional exhaustion but also to personal accomplishment. In line with
Hochschilds (1983) qualitative findings, it is emotional dissonance that is the
mismatch between the emotions that have to be displayed and the emotions that
one would like to display in a certain situation that is a stressor and that can lead
to psychological strain in the long run. Finally, it can be concluded that in jobs
where interacting with clients is a substantial part of the work, traditional
concepts of job stress do not suffice but should be complemented by concepts
measuring emotional requirements and emotional dissonance at work.
REFERENCES
Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: Antecedents, consequences and
moderators. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monogaphs, 124, 229246.
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. 371381). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
EMOTION WORK
397
Ashforth, B.E., & Humphrey, R.H. (1993). Emotional labour in service roles: The influence of
identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88115.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C.D. (1998, August). Affective eventsemotion matrix: A classification of
work events and associated emotions. Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions and
Organizational Life, San Diego, CA.
Best, R.G., Downey, R.G., & Jones, R.G. (1997). Job burnout: A dysfunctional consequence of
contextual performance. Paper presented at the Convention of the Sociely for Industrial and
Organizational 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 in
organizational 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 first
conference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San Diego.
Brucks, U. (1998). Arbeitspsychologie personbezogener Dienstleistungen [The work psychology
of 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, 281284.
Bssing, A., & Perrar, K.-M. (1992). Die Messung von Burnout. Untersuchung einer deutschen
Fassung des Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-D) [The measurement of burnout: Studies on a
German version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory]. Diagnostica , 38, 328353 .
Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310357.
Cordes, C.L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and integration of research on job burnout.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 621656.
Doucet, L. (1998, August). Responsiveness: Emotion and information dynamics in service
interactions . Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San
Diego.
Edwards, J.E., & van Harrison, R. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional
reexamination of the relationship between personenvironment fit and strain. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 628648.
Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K.R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.),
Approaches of emotion (pp. 319344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R.J. (Eds). (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1982). Felt, false and miserable smiles. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 6, 238252.
Erickson, R.J. (1991). When emotion is the product: Self, society, and inauthenticity in a
postmodern world. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington DC.
Frese, M. (1987). A theory of control and complexity: Implications for software design and
integration 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. 313338).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1987). Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Sozialen Stressoren am
Arbeitsplatz [A scale measuring social stressors at work]. Zeitschrift fr Arbeitswissenschaft,
41, 134141.
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. 375411).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
398
ZAPF ET AL.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology; A German approach. In
H.C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
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 international
symposium on Job Analysis, University of Hohenheim, March 1415 1989 (pp. 5366).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Hacker, W. (1973). Allgemeine Arbeits-und Ingenieurspsychologie [General work and
engineering psychology]. Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Hacker, W. (1998). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von Arbeits
ttigkeiten [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. 202237). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Hill, C.A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people but in different ways. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 10081018.
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 CenterArbeitspltzen [Stressors and resources in call-centres]. Zeitschrift fr Arbeitswissenschaft.
Izard, C.E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, 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. 571650).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kruml, S.M., & Geddes, D. (1998, August). Catching fire without burning out: Is there an ideal
way to perform emotional labor? Paper presented at the first conference on Emotions in
Organizational 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, 123133.
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 Befindensbeeintrchtigungen bei Arbeitern [The
measurement of psychological dysfunctioning of workers]. Frankfurt a.M. Peter Lang.
Mohr, G. (1991). Fnf Subkonstrukte psychischer Befindensbeeintrchtigungen bei Industriearbeitern: Auswahl und Entwicklung [Five subconstructs of psychological dysfunctioning of
EMOTION WORK
399
industrial workers: Selection and development]. In S. Greif, E. Bamberg, & N.K. Semmer
(Eds.), Psychischer Stre am Arbeitsplatz (pp. 91119). Gttingen, Germay: Hogrefe.
Morris, J.A. & Feldman, D.C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 9891010.
Morris, J.A., & Feldman, D.C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 9, 257274.
Nerdinger, F.W. (1994). Zur Psychologie der Dienstleistung [The psychology of service].
Stuttgart, Germany: Schffer-Poeschel.
Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of supermarket
cashiers. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 245273.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 2337.
Riggio, R.E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 649660.
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. 3146).
Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical
analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
Schaufeli, W., Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (Eds.). (1993). Professional burnout: recent
developments in theory and research. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Scherer, K.R. (1997). Emotion. In W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone, & G.M. Stephenson (Eds.),
Sozialpsychologie. Eine Einfhrung (3rd ed., pp. 293330). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Scherer, K.R., & Wallbott, H. (1990). Ausdruck von Emotionen [Expression of emotions]. In
K.R. Scherer, Enzyklopdie der Psychologie, Psychologie der Emotion (Vol. C/IV/3, pp. 345
422). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Semmer, N.K. (1984). Strebezogene Ttigkeitsanalyse [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. 5186).
Semmer, N.K., & Baillod, J. (1991, August). Different forms of job satisfaction. Paper presented
at 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 an
instrument. In O. Svane & C. Johansen (Eds.), Work and healthscientific basis of progress in
the working environment (pp. 105113). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
Semmer, N.K., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1999). Instrument zur Stressbezogenen
Ttigkeitsanalyse (ISTA) [Stress-oriented job analysis instrument ISTA) (pp. 176204).
In H. Dunckel (Ed.), Handbuch zur Arbeitsanalyse. Zurich, Switzerland: Verlag der
Fachvereine.
Spector, P.E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on affective
reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work and Stress, 1, 155162.
Spector, P.E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self report measures
of job conditions. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Roberston (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology, 1992 (Vol. 7, pp. 123151). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Stenross, B., & Kleinman, S. (1989). The highs and lows of emotional labor. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 17, 435452.
400
ZAPF ET AL.
Strack, F., Stepper, L.L., & Martin, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human
smile: A non-obstrusive test of the facial-feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 768777.
Strauss, A., Farahaugh, S., Suczek, B., & Wiener, C. (1980). Gefhlsarbeit. Ein Beitrag
zur Arbeits- & Berufssoziologie [Sentimental work. A contribution to work & occupational
sociology].
Klner
Zeitschrift
fr
Soziologie
und
Sozialpsychologie,
32,
629651.
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, 361381.
Volpert, W. (1974). Handlungsstrukturanalyse als Beitrag zur Qualifikationsforschung [Action
structure analysis: A contribution to qualification research]. Kln, Germany: Pahl-Rugenstein.
Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S.K. (1996). The demandcontrol model of
job strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69,
153166.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Hudy, M.J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single
item measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247252.
Wiemann, J.M., & Giles, H. (1997). Interpersonale Kommunikation [Interpersonal communication]. In W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone, & G.M. Stephenson (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie. Eine
Einfhrung (3rd ed., pp. 331366). Berlin: Springer.
Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job.
Work and Occupations, 20, 205232.
Zapf, D. (1993). Stress-oriented job analysis of computerized office work. The European Work
and Organizational Psychologist, 3, 85100.
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress
research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145169.

Zapf 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zapf 1999

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zapf 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]

On: 15 August 2013, At: 13:36

To cite this article: Dieter Zapf , Christoph Vogt , Claudia Seifert ,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of

Emotion Work as a Source of Stress:

Dieter Zapf, Christoph Vogt, Claudia Seifert, Heidrun Mertini,

J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany

This article discussed emotion work as a neglected area in organizational stress

Psychological stress research in organizations comprises a substantial body of

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

psychological stressors. Although the former were explicitly mentioned, the

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

It is only recently that authors tried to investigate the relationships between

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

companies do not have explicit display rules as a part of the organizational

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

minimal amount of conflicts, time pressure or superfluous organizational

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

that are related to the regulation of emotions and differentiated sensitivity,

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Hypothesis 1: Emotion work is a multidimensional

Within emotion work, emotional requirements, emotion control, and emotional

Hypothesis 2(a): Emotional requirement scales are positively

It is expected that the various aspects of emotional requirements are highly

Hypothesis 2(b): Emotional requirement scales are also

The frequency of emotional dissonance also depends on the frequency of

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Hypothesis 2(c): Emotion control is negatively related with

Hypothesis 3: There are both positive and negative

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

required this should lead to psychological strain, especially to emotional

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Hypothesis 4: Emotion work control and

Emotion work-related control is conceptualized as a special case of job

Hypothesis 5: Emotional dissonance is negatively

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

In Study 1, we first developed a list of items covering the constructs of emotion

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Emotional Depersonal- Personal

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Eaa1 Requirement to express pleasant emotions

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

positive-negative emotions dimension. Showing positive emotions obviously

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013

Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 13:36 15 August 2013