This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]On: 15 August 2013, At: 13:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales RegisteredNumber: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Emotion Work as aSource of Stress:The Concept andDevelopment of anInstrumentDieter Zapf , Christoph Vogt , ClaudiaSeifert , Heidrun Mertini & Amela IsicPublished online: 10 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Dieter Zapf , Christoph Vogt , Claudia Seifert ,Heidrun Mertini & Amela Isic (1999) Emotion Work as a Source ofStress: The Concept and Development of an Instrument, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8:3, 371-400, DOI:10.1080/135943299398230

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the Content) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and shouldbe independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, andother liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 371

1999 Psychology Press Ltd

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1999, 8 (3), 371400

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

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

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

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

J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

372 ZAPF ET AL.

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 373

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

374 ZAPF ET AL.

companies do not have explicit display rules as a part of the organizationalculture or as part of their job descriptions, in particular not in Continental Europe.However, mission statements of companies sometimes incorporate display rulesand there may be implicit display rules taught in ones occupational education oras 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 sellanything if you are not polite, friendly, and helpful. Employers differ in theirattempts to control and direct how employees display emotions to clients. Insome cases, it is part of the supervisors jobs to take care that display rules areobserved. Increasingly, companies ask customers to evaluate whether they weretreated in a friendly manner.

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 375

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

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

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

376 ZAPF ET AL.

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

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

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 377

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

378 ZAPF ET AL.

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

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 379

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

380 ZAPF ET AL.

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 381

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

382 ZAPF ET AL.

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

Hypothesis 1: Emotion work is a multidimensionalconstruct

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

Hypothesis 2(a): Emotional requirement scales are positivelycorrelated

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 383

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

384 ZAPF ET AL.

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 385

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

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

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

Hypothesis 5: Emotional dissonance is negativelyrelated with health

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

386 ZAPF ET AL.

METHOD

Samples

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

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

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

Procedure

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 387

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

Instruments

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

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

388 ZAPF ET AL.

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

RESULTS

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

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ite D

e Pari

s 1] a

t 13:3

6 15 A

ugus

t 201

3

EMOTION WORK 389

389

TABLE 1

Descriptive data of study variables

Mea

nSD

Em

otio

nal

Dep

erso

nal-

Per

sona

lIr

rita

tion

Psy

chos

omat

icSe

lf-

Job

Exh

aust

ion

izat

ion

Acc

omp

lish

men

tC

ompl

aint

ses

teem

Sati

sfac

tion

Bu

rnou

t:E

mot

iona

l ex

haus

tion

2.38

0.84

(0.8

7)

2.2

00.

85 (

0.85

)2.

571.

24(0

.92

)

Dep

erso

nali

zati

on1.

560.

57 0

.50*

*(0

.43

)2.

140.

950

.65*

*(0

.67

)2.

320.

980.

58**

(0.6

5)

Per

sona

l ac

com

plis

hmen

t4.

970.

820

.06

0.02

(0.7

9)

4.57

1.07

0.0

50

.05

(0.8

0)

4.75

0.98

0.3

0**

0.1

3*(0

.78

)

Irri

tati

on2.

971.

090.

43**

0.37

**0

.15

(0.8

1)

2.89

1.17

0.52

**0.

37**

0.0

7(0

.88

)2.

711.

200.

56**

0.30

**0

.15*

(0.8

9)

Psy

chos

omat

ic c

ompl

aint

s 2

.17

0.73

0.49

**0.

36**

0.2

6*0.

56**

(0.9

1) 2

.13

0.64

0.70

**0.

39 *

*0.

06 0

.58*

*(0

.91)

2.4

60.

750.

64**

0.33

**0

.30

**0.

62**

(0.9

2)

Sel

f-es

teem

4.37

0.42

0.

210

.25*

0.17

0.5

0**

0.

28**

(0.8

7) 4

.40

0.41

0.1

20

.04

0.23

0.2

5**

0.1

8*(0

.71)

4.3

70.

440

.25

**0

.14

**0.

390

.29

**0

.22*

(0.6

9)

Job

sati

sfac

tion

5.18

0.85

0.4

6**

0.5

1**

0.12

0.2

10

.33

**0

.02

(0.7

5)5.

171.

030

.50

**0

.40

**0.

22*

0.2

3**

0.3

0**

0.26

**a

4.36

1.28

0.7

2**

0.5

3**

0.34

**0

.40

**0

.50

**0.

19**

(0.8

6)

Cro

nbac

hs

alph

a in

par

enth

eses

; *

P