195 The British Psychological Society Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2005), 78, 195–220 q 2005 The British Psychological Society www.bpsjournals.co.uk Special section It’s not only clients: Studying emotion work with clients and co-workers with an event-sampling approach Franziska Tschan1*, Sylvie Rochat2 and Dieter Zapf3 1 University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchâtel, Switzerland 3 Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany 2 A group of 78 young employees in service and non-service professions reported 848 task related interactions at work over 1 week using a variant of the Rochester Interaction Record which measured emotion work requirements, emotional dissonance, and deviance. Multi-level analyses showed that dissonance was more likely in interactions with customers, whereas deviance, that is, the violation of display rules by acting out one’s felt emotion, was more likely in co-worker interactions. Well-being in the interaction was lower (a) for interactions with emotion work requirements, (b) for dissonance, even after controlling for felt negative emotions, and (c) for deviance. Negative emotion displayed partially mediated the relationship between deviance and well-being. Regarding the relationship of more stable job related attitudes, psychosomatic complaints, and aggregated scores of social interactions, fewer effects were found than in questionnaire studies, which may be due to the fact that only interactions that lasted at least 10 minutes were assessed, as is customary in research with this instrument. Among the effects found, however, many involved proportions rather than frequency of interactions, which raises the possibility of balancing and legitimizing effects of non-stressful interactions. Many work related interactions require employees to control their behaviour and the display of their emotions (Hochschild, 1983). Examples include nurses who have to show compassion towards a patient, teachers who explain the same thing to a student over and over again in a friendly and patient way, but have to act in a severe and stern manner if the same student engages in a fight with a classmate, or a salesperson who has to stay calm and polite vis-à-vis an angry customer. The requirement to display specific emotions in front of customers (or clients, patients, students, etc., cf. Gutek, 1995) and to manage one’s own emotions to achieve the required display, has been described as * Correspondence should be addressed to Franziska Tschan, University of Neuchatel, Groupe de Psychologie Applique, Faubourg de l’Hopital, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland (e-mail: [email protected]). DOI:10.1348/096317905X39666 196 Franziska Tschan et al. emotional labour or emotion work (e.g. Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Zapf, 2002). Although emotion work is required because of its positive effects for the organization, and because it may be a necessary part of accomplishing a task, many researchers have identified unfavourable long-term consequences for those who have to perform emotion work (e.g. Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000). The requirement to display specific emotions in customer related and co-worker interactions Many everyday interactions are guided by norms and rules, and in many instances these rules also include what emotions should be shown (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). This implies that many of the emotions shown during interactions are in fact not felt, but ‘acted’, for example, if people try to disguise disappointment over a gift they do not like, showing gratitude instead (Goffman, 1959; Hochschild, 1983). Display rules are sometimes explicitly stated as role-expectations in organizations. For example, Disney states its expectation as ‘first, we practice the friendly smile at all times with our guests and among ourselves’, and employees at Disney are trained how to convey positive emotions to Disney’s customers (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Emotion display rules may also ensue from professional norms, and may be part of professional training, for example, in nursing, teaching professions, or law (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). Besides the rather specific rules about how to behave in work-related interactions, more general, societal norms exist. One of these is to be polite and friendly, and not to show rude or uncouth behaviour in everyday interactions (Leary, 1996). Emotion work as a job demand has been described and investigated mainly in servicerelated professions, such as nursing (Smith, 1992), supermarket cashiers (Rafaeli, 1989), call centre agents (Grebner et al., 2003; Zapf, Isic, Bechtoldt, & Blau, 2003), but also bill collectors (Sutton, 1991), and police officers (Martin, 1999). That emotion work may also be an issue in interactions with colleagues and supervisors at work, and thus present in non-service as well as service occupations, has been largely neglected. Actually, the Disney example mentioned above explicitly states display rules among colleagues. Standards about what emotions should be displayed, or even felt in interactions with colleagues may well be part of the corporate culture. For example, Kunda and van Maanen (1999) cite from a ‘corporate culture handbook’ that employees are expected to be ‘enthusiastic’, ‘enjoy doing what they are doing’, and ‘show commitment no matter what it takes’ (1999, p. 68). Besides explicitly stated organizational norms, widely shared rules about interactions between colleagues at work have been described. They include being friendly and polite, not criticizing each other in public, and maintaining a courteous and friendly attitude even with colleagues that are not liked (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). The extension of the concept of emotion work to interactions with colleagues has been recommended by several researchers. Steinberg (1999) suggested including emotion work aspects into job evaluations for managerial positions. Grandey, Tam, and Brauburger (2002) and Totterdell and Holman (2003) included both customer and colleague related events. Note that arguing for the relevance of emotion work for interactions with colleagues is not incompatible with the notion that emotion work may be more frequently encountered in service professions. After all, in these professions, one has to interact with both colleagues and clients. This study investigates emotion work and its relationship to well-being in service as well in non-service professions in interactions with customers and co-workers. Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 197 Dealing with emotion work requirements: authenticity, dissonance and deviance Emotion work requirements imply emotion display rules, which prescribe what emotion should be shown in a given interaction. In general, displaying a specific emotion is interpreted by the interaction partner as a sign that the person actually feels the emotion shown. If the person actually feels and displays the emotion that is required, one can talk of authenticity or emotional harmony (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). However, this is not always the case, as people sometimes fake emotions in order to comply with norms and rules. Emotional dissonance has been described as a situation when an employee is required to display an emotion that is not genuinely felt in the particular situation (Hochschild, 1983; Zapf, Vogt, Seifert, Mertini, & Isic, 1999; Zerbe, 2000). Consider, for example, a salesperson dealing with a customer who is upset. In such a situation, the salesperson may feel angry, but remains friendly: the salesperson suppresses the display of the negative emotion, and ‘fakes’ the required, positive emotion, thus actively regulating emotional expression (Zapf, Seifert, Schmutte, Mertini, & Holz, 2001). Emotional dissonance is not restricted to expressing a positive emotion while not feeling it, although this may be a typical configuration. Dissonance may also imply suppressing positive or negative emotions if the requirement is neutral (e.g. a doctor who announces a serious illness to a patient), or deliberately expressing negative emotions, even if one does not feel them (e.g. scolding a child who has done something dangerous). Several authors (e.g. Hochschild, 1983; Zapf, 2002) distinguish different mechanisms related to dissonance, such as deep acting (trying to feel the emotion required) or automatic regulation, if display of the emotion is part of the professional identity, or if the interaction is so well scripted that the emotion display can be routinized (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Briner, 1999). In this paper, we use the term dissonance to describe interactions where a person expresses the emotion required by a display rule, but does not feel that particular emotion, thus doing ‘surface acting’ (Hochschild, 1983). A discrepancy between display rules and felt emotions may, however, also be dealt with by deviating from the display rule and displaying the felt rather than the required emotion, as when a waitress gives a bad sneer to customers after they told her how to do her job (Hall, 1993). This has been described as emotional deviance (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Emotional deviance can be due to a lack of self-control in a given situation if one loses one’s temper, but it may also be that deviance is part of a strategy for interacting with particular people, or is shown because the emotion display rule is not accepted in a given situation (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Emotional deviance has often been described as including the expression of negative emotions when a neutral or positive requirement exists. However, other forms of deviance may also occur, for example displaying positive emotions while the display rule prescribes neutral emotions. Situational aspects of emotion work, dissonance or deviance So far, emotion work has mostly been studied with regard to whole professions or with regard to work constellations in general. Much less attention has been given to concrete work-related interactions. However, emotion work requirements are at least partially determined by situational characteristics (Côté, in press): although nurses have to be friendly with all patients, they should be severe on finding out that a patient throws their pills away. Martin (1999) observed that required emotional displays from police officers differed as a function of situational aspects, robberies required aggressiveness, conflict resolution required neutral emotions, and consoling an accident victim required 198 Franziska Tschan et al. empathy. Thus, emotional display rules are contingent on the specific characteristics of different situations (Sutton, 1991). What determines if a person shows dissonance or deviance? A recent study by Totterdell and Holman (2003) found that (a) the willingness to meet display obligations and (b) the requirement to regulate negative affects predicted dissonance. They also found that negative events led to more dissonance when they involved customers as compared with co-workers. This latter finding could be a sign of a greater ‘display latitude’ (Kruml & Geddes, 2000; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Wharton, 1993), or weaker display rules (Morris & Feldman, 1996) in interactions with co-workers as compared with customer-related interactions. In comparison to the often explicit and specific rules about how to deal with clients, rules about interaction with co-workers may be less specified, leaving more leeway for ‘violation’. Furthermore, even when ‘acting out’ emotions is perceived as a violation of rules, such violations may be easier to ‘repair’, because interactions with colleagues are part of long-term relationships, which are based not mainly on immediate, but on long-term reciprocity (Gutek, 1995). This allows for a sort of compensation (e.g. by excuses later on, or by providing enjoyable interactions), and this compensation may occur with quite some delay. Norms for longterm relationships may also specify behaviours quite opposite to those expected in dealing with clients. Rules concerning relationships contain a requirement to be honest, which implies the expectation that true emotions are shown (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). If the interaction partner realizes that emotions are faked, the intended effect of dissonant behaviour may be reversed, as research on impression-management shows (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1989). Based on these considerations, we state the following hypotheses concerning the prediction of dissonance and deviance in interactions with clients or colleagues: Hypothesis 1.1 In interactions requiring emotion work (display rules), dissonance will be more likely if the interaction partner is a client as opposed to a colleague. Hypothesis 1.2 In interactions requiring emotion work, deviance will be more likely if the interaction partner is a colleague as opposed to a client. Effects of emotion work, dissonance or deviance on interaction quality Conceptually, a central focus in the study of emotion work has been the long-term consequences of emotion work, both for the organization and for the employees. Emotion work requirements as such have been postulated, and found, to increase stress symptoms, such as burnout, and to decrease well-being (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Grebner et al., 2003; Zapf et al., 1999). For example, Schaubroeck and Jones (2000) found a positive relationship between the requirement to display positive emotions and physical symptoms, even after controlling for age, gender, education, and negative affectivity. With regard to job related attitudes as effects of emotion work requirements, the evidence is mixed. Some studies found no relationship between emotion work and job satisfaction (e.g. Zapf et al., 1999) but also associations between the requirement to display positive emotions and enhanced well-being have been found (Adelmann, 1995; Morris & Feldman, 1997). Insofar as emotion work requirements restrict the employee’s latitude on how to manage interactions, it seems likely that it may have more negative than positive consequences. Emotional dissonance, however, shows a straightforward pattern in most studies. In their case study on prison officers, Rutter and Fielding (1988) found that the need to Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 199 suppress genuinely felt emotions was negatively correlated with job satisfaction, and other studies yielded similar results (Dormann & Kaiser, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1997). Emotional dissonance has also been found to be related to symptoms of strain, such as psychosomatic complaints, or irritability (e.g. Grebner et al., 2003), and depressed mood (Erickson & Ritter, 2001). Most researchers consider emotional dissonance the core element of stress caused by emotion work (e.g. Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Zapf et al., 2001). Zapf et al. (1999) argue that complying with emotion work requirements can be seen as a goal-directed action. If people can follow well rehearsed scripts, the process can be automatized, without much regulation effort (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Zapf, 2002). However, emotional dissonance makes automatic regulation less likely, and emotion management and faking the emotion may require additional effort and a higher level of self-control, which has been found to be a limited resource (Baumeister, Faber, & Wallace, 1999). Moreover, the literature on emotion regulation has shown that the suppression of felt emotions is accompanied by heightened activity of the sympathetic nervous system (Gross, 1998). It is associated with hypertension, self reported negative health symptoms (King & Emmons, 1990), and exhaustion (e.g. Grandey, 2003; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Zapf et al., 1999, 2001). Emotional deviance is also likely to have negative consequences (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Zerbe, 2000). Expressing not the required, but the felt emotion may be perceived as a violation of interaction rules, and may contribute to unpleasant reactions of the interaction partner. This is especially true if the emotion felt and shown is negative. In addition, employees that show deviance may be punished by the organization, and/or by clients. A salesperson who snaps back to customers may sell less and convey a bad image of the organization, or an unfriendly waiter gets fewer tips (Crusco & Wetzel, 1984). Furthermore, deviance may be seen as unpleasant, and as a lack of self-control also from the actor’s perspective, and thus be damaging to self-worth (Hall, 1993). Although negative effects have been postulated for emotional deviance (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Zerbe, 2000), the effects of emotional deviance have not often been examined empirically. In most of the studies cited above, the effects of emotion work were conceived as consequences of chronic strain caused by high frequency of emotion work requirements, and emotional dissonance. Implicitly or explicitly, the idea that frequent emotion work results in chronic strain rests on the assumption that emotion work must have an immediate impact on the evaluation of the specific interaction. The theoretical arguments for effects of emotion work are based on immediate effects occurring during an interaction, and the long-term effects are in a way ‘extrapolated’ from this reasoning (Rochat, 2004). In this paper, we investigate interactions with emotion work requirements, and assess the relationship of dissonance and deviance in such interactions with the evaluation of the interaction. Investigating immediate effects of emotion work requirements, dissonance, and deviance is necessary to understand the processes involved and to substantiate the theoretical arguments that link emotion work to potential long-term outcomes. Only a few studies have investigated emotion work on the interaction level. For example, Totterdell and Holman (2003) studied emotion work with an event sampling approach and showed that short term negative effects resulted (emotional exhaustion) if emotions had to be faked. This study also sheds light on the kind of emotions that typically are suppressed. In most dissonant interactions people hide negative feelings and display positive or neutral emotions (Totterdell & Holman, 2003). We, therefore, assume that in most cases of emotional dissonance it is a positive 200 Franziska Tschan et al. emotion that has to be faked, and a negative emotion that is actually felt. This is important, because felt negative emotions have a large impact on the evaluation of an interaction (Ostell, 1996). To the extent that this is true, many effects postulated for dissonance may actually be due to negative emotions felt. In order to separate the effects of dissonance as regulation effort from those of negative emotions felt during the interaction, felt negative emotions should be controlled for. Above, we presented arguments on why emotional deviance is also likely to be related to a reduced quality of interactions. However, the effect of open display rule violation may be different depending on the emotion actually displayed. If a negative emotion is shown where a positive or neutral one is expected, this is likely to be more disruptive for the interaction than if a positive emotion is shown instead of a negative or neutral one (with, certainly the exception of very inappropriate display of positive emotions, such as in sexual harassment). Consequently, such ‘positive deviance’ is less likely to be related to decreased evaluation of an interaction than a ‘negative deviance’. We, therefore, postulate that the relationship between deviance and evaluation of the interaction is at least partially mediated by displayed negative emotions. Note that our argument relates to emotions felt in the case of dissonance, but to emotions displayed in the case of deviance. We state the following hypotheses with regard to the evaluation of interactions, assessed by situational well-being during the interaction: Hypothesis 2.1 Interactions with emotion work requirements are related to lower situational well-being than interactions without emotion requirements, Hypothesis 2.2 If, during an interaction with emotion work requirements, dissonance is reported, well-being during the interaction is lower, even after negative emotions felt is controlled for, Hypothesis 2.3 If, in an interaction with emotion work requirements, deviance is reported, situational well-being is lower, Hypothesis 2.4 The relationship between deviance and situational well-being is (partially) mediated by the display of negative emotions during the interaction. Effects of emotion work interactions on job related attitudes and psychosomatic complaints While situational effects will depend on the characteristics of the situation, chronic effects are likely to develop only if situations that evoke negative immediate effects occur frequently. And, indeed, investigators typically relate the amount of emotion work and the frequency of dissonance to the potential long-term effects (Grebner et al., 2003; Morris & Feldman, 1996; Zapf, 2002). To the extent that the event-related data collected constitute a sample of interactions that is representative for the frequency of emotion work requirements, emotional dissonance and emotional deviance, relationships with well-being similar to those described above should be found: Hypothesis 3.1 The frequency of (a) interactions with emotion work, (b) dissonance, and (c) deviance are related to lower job satisfaction, higher resigned attitude towards one’s job and more psychosomatic complaints. One could argue that strain caused by emotion work not only depends on the frequency of emotion work, dissonance or deviance, but also depends on the proportion of interactions with these characteristics. For example, if someone has only one client Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 201 interaction a day, and that involves dissonance, this may be more stressful than having one interaction involving dissonance plus nine interactions that do not. If the other interactions are more pleasant, they may be regarded as a resource that counters the effect of the one interaction that is stressful, implying a positive balance (see Hobfoll, 2001; Semmer, 2000). The (few) interactions that are stressful will then not be regarded as indicating stressful working conditions overall, but rather as ‘normal’ instances of problems that one considers inevitable in everyday life: Hypothesis 3.2 A higher proportion of interactions with emotion work and dissonance or deviance is related to lower job satisfaction, higher job resignation, and more psychosomatic complaints. Method Participants of this study were recruited from a larger, longitudinal study investigating transition from professional training into work (Kälin et al., 2000). The selected participants were interviewed, and they were asked to record, for 7 consecutive days, all interactions at work and in private life that lasted 10 minutes or more. They also received a questionnaire to complete. Participants From the overall sample of the grand study, 99 participants from the French part of Switzerland were randomly recruited. They had to be working at least 8 hours per week, and they had to have at least one colleague at work. Of the 99 participants interviewed (data not reported here), 90 returned the questionnaire, and 78 also returned the interaction records. These 78 participants constitute the sample of this study. Of the participants, 48.7% were women, the mean age was 25 years (SD ¼ 3:2), they worked as nurses (15 women and 5 men), sales and restaurant service (15 women and 12 men), in clerical jobs (8 women and 10 men) or in technical jobs (e.g. technicians, watch-makers, 9 men). About 4.5 years before data collection (constituting the first measurement wave of the grand project) all participants had successfully completed a professional training (apprenticeship) lasting between 2 (sales) and 4 years (nurses, technicians). The majority (78%) of the participants held a full time job, 3% worked less than half time, and the rest worked between 50% and 90% of a full time job. Average job tenure was 2 years and 10 months. As not all participants reported all types of interactions investigated, the actual N may vary between analyses. Diary measures Event-sampling A variant of the Rochester Interaction Record method (RIR; Nezlek, Wheeler, & Reis, 1983) was used to gather information about daily interactions. Participants were asked to fill in a sheet for every interaction that lasted 10 minutes or more during 7 consecutive days. An interaction was defined as any encounter with one or more other persons in which the interaction partners attended to one another and mutually adjusted their behaviour (Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977). For each interaction, participants noted the date and time of its beginning, its duration, and the other persons involved. In particular, respondents indicated the gender of the interaction partner(s) and whether they were co-workers, clients, friends, family members, romantic partners, or other. They also 202 Franziska Tschan et al. indicated the type of interaction in terms of (a) task-related professional interaction (e.g. a transaction with a customer, preparing a project with a colleague), (b) non-taskrelated interaction at work (e.g. chatting with colleagues), or (c) non work-related private interaction (Tschan, Semmer, & Inversin, 2004). Participants described the content of the interaction in a few words. They were further asked to indicate, on a five point Likert-scale (1 ¼ very little, 5 ¼ to a great deal), how much in control they were during the interaction, who initiated the interaction (other, mutual, self), and the degree of intimacy in the interaction. Finally, they were asked to evaluate the interaction with regard to satisfaction with the interaction and personal well-being during the interaction. Emotion work requirements, emotional dissonance, and emotional deviance in an interaction were assessed with three questions: (a) participants indicated whether there was a requirement to display a specific emotion (positive, negative, neutral) or not, (b) participants indicated what emotion they displayed during the interaction (positive, negative or neutral), and (c) participants indicated what emotion they had actually felt during the interaction (positive, negative or neutral). Emotion work requirement was assumed if the participants indicated a requirement to display a specific emotion. Emotional dissonance was assumed if participants displayed the emotion required but indicated feeling another emotion. Emotional deviance was attributed to interactions in which participants did not display the required, but another, felt emotion. The 78 participants reported 2,534 interactions. Of these, 50% took place outside of the work context, 16.5% were reported as being at work but in a non work-related context, and 31.9% (848) were at work and covered work related topics. Only the latter were included in the analyses. Ten participants did not report any task-related interactions at work. The mean number of days the interactions record were returned was 6.62 (SD ¼ 1:24). Of the participants, 72 filled out the interaction records during 7 consecutive days, three for 4 days, one for 2 days, and two for 1 day only. Due to professions with shiftwork and other work arrangements, not all participants worked five out of the 7 days, and not all participants worked standard 8 hour shifts a day. To have a better estimate of interaction frequency, we calculated estimates of number of interactions for an average 5 day, 40-hour work week, by weighting the number of work related interactions reported by the number of working hours reported for each person in the observation period. Instructions and accuracy of reporting interactions During the interview, participants received a one-to-one explanation of approximately 15 minutes about how to fill in the interaction records. Examples were given in order to indicate which situations were not to be considered as interactions (e.g. sitting side by side and watching television), and which situations were appropriate for reporting (e.g. talking about the television programme). Participants filled in sample records in presence of the researcher, received feedback, and questions were answered. They were encouraged to fill in the self-observation sheet immediately after the interaction, but at least twice a day. Participants were given seven envelopes and were asked to mail in their brochures each day. They were given a reward for participating in the study (50 Swiss Francs), and participated in a lottery. As in other diary research (Peeters, 1994; Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985), questions about accuracy and omission in reporting were included after the self-observation period. Mean accuracy was reported to be 4.7 (SD ¼ 0:7), (1 ¼ very inaccurate, 7 ¼ very accurate). This indicates a moderate Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 203 accuracy, but is comparable with results found in other studies (Peeters, 1994; Reis et al., 1985). The participants guessed having omitted about 17.8% (SD ¼ 12:7) interactions. This is higher than in other studies, where the percentage of omitted interactions is between 5% and 10% for a student population (Reis & Wheeler, 1991) or a population of elderly (10%; Nezlek, Richardson, Green, & Schatten-Jones, 2002), however closer to a study where employees reported work-related interactions (12%; Peeters, 1994). Questionnaire measures The questionnaire contained questions about the participants’ work and personal situation. Only scales used for analyses in this paper are reported. All scales were translated into French either from German or English versions, and checked by backtranslation. Individual characteristics Participants indicated their gender, age, job tenure, profession, and whether they had regular contact with clients. Each participant was then classified as working in a service versus non-service job, based on the profession and contact with clients indicated. The classification used corresponds to the distinction suggested by Zapf between ‘person-oriented-work’ and ‘object-oriented-work’ (Zapf, 2002). Cohen’s kappa of two independent ratings was .73 (p , :01; Rochat, 2002). In case of disagreement the final classification was obtained by a discussion between the raters. Negative affectivity was assessed 6 months before the current study as part of the measures taken in the context of the larger study (Kälin et al., 2000). We used a short version of the bipolar adjective rating (Ostendorf, 1990; Schallberger & Venetz, 1999), based on the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Internal consistency of the scale was .83 (Cronbach’s alpha). Psychological well-being was measured using the 16-item list of psychosomatic complaints by Mohr (1991). People had to indicate to what extent they suffered (1 ¼ almost never, 5 ¼ almost every day) from different physical symptoms (e.g. headaches, back pain, dizziness). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .86. Job satisfaction was measured with four items of the job satisfaction scale developed by Baillod and Semmer (1994) on the basis of Oegerli (1984). Sample items are, ‘after days off, I am really happy to return to work’, or ‘I am satisfied with my work’. Response format is a Likert-scale ranging from 1 to 7. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .83. Resigned attitude towards one’s job (four items) is based on the concept of ‘resigned job satisfaction’ (Bruggemann, 1974) and taps a defensive or resentful adaptation to nonoptimal working conditions. A sample item is, ‘my job is not ideal, but it could be worse’. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .78. Analyses Multi-level models To test hypotheses 1 to 3, multi-level regression analyses were performed, using the MLwiN version 1.10 software package (Rasbash et al., 2000). Multi-level modelling is a regression procedure for data with a hierarchical structure that estimates variance at different levels of observation (in our case between and within persons). It takes into account the non-independence of the observations, due to the hierarchical structure of the data, and the unequal number of observations per person (Jones, 1993; Nezlek, 2003). Multi-level modelling has been suggested and used for data based on the RIR (Nezlek, 2001, 2003). In the current study, Level 2 is the person level, and Level 1 the social interactions. 204 Franziska Tschan et al. To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, we first calculated a null or unconditional model, including only the intercept and no explanatory variable. Other models including more independent variables could then be compared with the null-model, and the increase in fit could be assessed. It has been argued that a model-testing approach (i.e. first entering control variables in the model and then adding independent variables, or estimating a model entering all variables simultaneously), or a backward-stepping approach (first enter all variables and then excluding those that are not significant) is not optimal for multi-level analyses, as each additional variable in the model increases the number of parameters estimated markedly, which may lead to estimation problems. Therefore, a forward stepping procedure is advised (e.g. Nezlek, 2003, p. 463). We first entered each of the control-variables on the person level separately, and excluded those that did not reach conventional statistical significance levels. In a next step, each of the control variables and the predictor variables on the interaction level were entered, and control variables were removed from the model, if these were not significant. For building the initial trimmed model, variables were estimated as fixed coefficients, and for the final model, random errors terms were estimated for each variable. However, random error terms were not retained in the model if their estimation did not lead to a significantly better fit of the overall model. As suggested by several authors (e.g. Hox, 2002), continuous predictors were centred around the grand mean. This allowed an easier interpretation of the intercept, which then represents the mean level of the dependent variable for an average value of the predictor. To test Hypotheses 1.1 and 1.2, a multi-level binary-response model was calculated. For the binary response models, again, a forward stepping strategy has been used, including all control variables singly into the model, but only retaining significant variables. Control variables at the person level On the person level, the gender of the participant was controlled for, because emotion work has been assumed to be typical for ‘female’ jobs (Gutek, Cherry, & Groth, 1999). In addition, several studies have found gender differences in the handling and effects of dissonance (Kruml & Geddes, 2000; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Type of job (service vs. non-service) was controlled for because emotion work has been labelled a typical working condition of service professions (e.g. Leidner, 1999). Negative affectivity was controlled for because it has been found to be related to evaluative judgments, both on a general level (e.g. job satisfaction) and on a situation level (e.g. Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). Control variables on the situation level Studies using the RIR methodology have found differences related to the sex composition in the interaction (Reis et al., 1985; Wheeler, Reis, & Nezlek, 1983), so ‘same gender interaction’ and ‘opposite-gender interaction’ were included as a control variables (reference category was ‘mixed gender interactions’). Rafaeli (1989) stressed the importance of control over the interaction and described several strategies cashiers used to keep or regain control. Control can be seen as a general need (Seligman, 1975), and a higher control during the interaction makes it easier to steer and influence the interaction according to own goals and needs, thus most likely influencing the evaluation of the interaction (Grebner, Elfering, Semmer, Kaiser-Probst, & Schlapbach, 2004; Nezlek et al., 2002). We, therefore, included felt control in the interaction as a control variable. Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 205 Results Work related interactions and emotion work To provide some context of emotion work observed in work-related interactions, we first report descriptive analyses based on the diary data. Participants reported an average of 11.54 (SD ¼ 11:34) work related interactions lasting 10 minutes or more (weighted for a 5 day, 40-hour regular working week). Significantly more interactions with colleagues (M ¼ 7:41, SD ¼ 6:9) than with clients (M ¼ 3:52, SD ¼ 5:63) were reported, tð74Þ ¼ 5:45, p , :001, and participants in service professions reported more interactions with clients (M ¼ 4:63; SD ¼ 6:31) than participants in non-service professions (M ¼ 1.18; SD ¼ 2:67), tð72:5Þ ¼ 3:33, p , :001. However, participants in service professions also reported a higher number of interactions with colleagues (M ¼ 8:69, SD ¼ 7:81) than participants in non-service professions (M ¼ 4.86, SD ¼ 3:43), tð72:8Þ ¼ 3:10, p , :01. The proportions of interactions with display rules (emotion work requirement) were estimated using a binary-response multi-level procedure (second order linearization, penalized quasi-likelihood [PQL] estimation; Goldstein & Rashbash, 1996). Based on these analyses, 49.7% of all work related interactions had a display rule. Display rules were more often reported for interactions with clients (88.8%), but were also present in interactions with co-workers (31%; p , :05). Participants in service professions reported a higher percentage of emotion work requirements (57.4%) than those in nonservice professions (32%; p , :05); this is due to the higher proportion of client interactions in service professions. Dissonance and deviance in client and co-worker related interactions As described above, emotional dissonance is given if a person displays the required emotion, but does not feel it. Of the recorded interactions, 83 involved dissonance. As can be expected, for most of these interactions, a positive display rule was present. In 35 (42.2%) interactions a negative emotion was felt while a positive displayed, in 39 (47.0%) interactions the emotion felt was neutral. A single interaction was reported where a positive emotion was felt, but a neutral display rule followed, and eight interactions involved neutral emotion shown but negative emotion felt. No dissonant interactions with negative display rules were reported. Deviance was described as not showing the emotion required by the display rule. Of the 79 interactions including deviance, 47 (61.8%) had a requirement to display a positive emotion, four (5.2%) a negative display rule, and 25 (32.8%) a neutral display rule. We hypothesized that deviance would be more likely if the interaction partner was a colleague (H1.1), whereas dissonance would be more likely in interactions with clients (H1.2). These hypotheses were tested using multi-level analyses. We used a forward stepping strategy described in the analyses section. Control variables tested at the Level 2 (person) were gender of the participant, service versus non-service profession, and negative affectivity; control variables tested at Level 1 (interactions) were same, opposite, and mixed gender composition, dyadic versus group interactions, and perceived control during the interaction. Level 1 predictor variable was the type of interaction partner (colleague or client); dependent variables were the proportion of dissonance (H1.1) and deviance (H1.2). As the dependent variables are dichotomous, a binary response model was calculated, using a second order PQL estimation. In non-linear models, values taken by the fixed effects are difficult to 206 Franziska Tschan et al. interpret. Rasbash et al. (2000) suggest interpreting the intercept as well as the increase of a proportional response (in this case, the proportion of deviant or dissonant interactions when emotion work is required), after adding predictors. This is calculated by working out the antilogit function of the estimated values (Rasbash et al. 2000). The analyses revealed that none of the control variables had a statistically significant influence on the proportion of dissonant or deviant interaction. Based on the unconditional model including 462 work related interactions with display rules, the percentage of dissonance (16.9%) and deviance (15.9%) on all interactions with display requirements was very similar. However, dissonance was more likely in interactions with clients (24.2%) than with colleagues (12.9%; p , :05, based on the Wald test), whereas deviance was more likely in interactions with colleagues (21.1%) than with clients (12.9%; p , :05). The results are in accordance with Hypotheses 1.1 and 1.2. Situational evaluation of interactions The next block of hypotheses concerns the immediate evaluation of an interaction. We asked participants to evaluate both satisfaction with the interaction and personal well-being during the interaction. Satisfaction with the interaction and well-being during the interaction showed a very high correlation (r ¼ :795; p , :01). Although all analyses were performed with each of the variables, only results for well-being are presented in this section, as analyses including satisfaction yielded very similar results, both in terms of what variables show significant relationships as well as with regards to predictor estimates. We first report results based on whether a requirement to display an emotion was present in the interaction (H2.1), then results evaluating relationships with dissonance (H2.2) and deviance (H2.3) in interactions. Emotion work requirements We hypothesized (H2.1) that well-being in the interaction would be lower for interactions requiring emotion work. This was tested using multi-level modelling, applying the model building strategy described above. To test for serial dependencies, a term for the first-order lag (the previous value in the time series) on the dependent variable was included. In Table 1, the unconditional model, as well as the final model is reported. Non-significant control variables at Level 2 were sex of the participant, and service versus non-service profession. Non-significant control variables tested at Level 1 were same and opposite-sex interactions (as compared with mixed-sex interactions), interaction partner (client vs. colleague), dyadic versus group interactions, and lag1 well-being. Table 1 shows that emotion work requirements were associated with lower well-being in the interaction. Negative affectivity also lowered well-being, and felt control during the interaction was related to higher well-being. The trimmed model yields a significantly better fit than the unconditional model (p , :001), thus supporting H2.1. Dissonance Hypothesis 2.2 stated that experiencing dissonance would lower situational well-being in the interaction, even after controlling for negative emotions felt during the interaction. The results of the corresponding multi-level analyses, displayed in Table 2, show indeed that negative emotion felt had the biggest negative impact on well-being in the interaction. In fact, having a negative emotion lowered well-being more than one point on a 5-point scale. However, as expected, dissonance still showed a negative relationship with situational well-being after controlling for negative emotion felt, Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 207 Table 1. Requirement to display an emotion and situational well-being in interactions Variable Fixed effects Level 2 Level 1 Random effects Model fit Intercept Negative affectivity Control Emotion work requirement VAR Level 2 VAR Level 1 VAR control VAR requirement COV intercept/control COV intercept/requirement COV control/requirement *2 loglikelihood Unconditional model 3.993(.063)* .193(.046) .670(.034) 2152.412 Trimmed model 4.163(.067)* 20.221(.093)* 0.126(.035)* 20.248(.076)* .129(.046) .031(.012) .073(.021) .000(.018) 2.012(.040) 2.037(.021) 1948.007 Note. Based on 848 work related interactions. Parameter estimates are unstandardized coefficients, numbers in brackets are standard errors. The dependent variable is well-being in the interaction, rated on a scale from 1 to 5, higher numbers indicate better well-being. VAR ¼ Variance; COV ¼ Covariance; *p , :05. Table 2. Emotional dissonance and situational well-being in interactions Variable Fixed effects Level 2 Level 1 Random effects Model fit Intercept Negative affectivity Control Dissonance Negative emotion felt VAR Level 2 VAR Level 1 VAR control VAR dissonance VAR negative emotion COV intercept/control COV intercept/dissonance COV intercept/negative emotion felt COV control/dissonance COV control/ negative emotion felt COV dissonance/negative emotion felt *2 loglikelihood Unconditional model 3.933(.063)* .193(.046) .670(.033) Trimmed model 4.223(.057)* 2.206(.071)* .073(.030)* 2.189(.081)* 21.247(.119)* .145(.036) .039(.021) .023(.009) .084(.060) .400(.140) 2.008 (.012) 2.043(.037) 2.114(.057) .0263(.017) .003 (.026) 2.148(.075) 2152.412 1661.139 Note. Based on 848 work related interactions. Parameter estimates are unstandardized coefficients, numbers in brackets are standard errors. The dependent variable is well-being in the interaction, rated on a scale from 1 to 5, higher numbers indicate better well-being. VAR ¼ Variance; COV ¼ Covariance; *p , :05. 208 Franziska Tschan et al. indicating that the negative impact of dissonance could not be entirely explained by negative emotions felt. The trimmed model has a significantly better fit than the unconditional model ( p , :001). Deviance It was hypothesized (H2.3) that deviance during the interaction was related to lower situational well-being. We also expected that negative emotion shown in the interaction would act as a (partial) mediator between deviance and well-being (H2.4). Again, these hypotheses were tested using multi-level modelling (see Table 3). To assess the mediating role of negative emotions shown on the relationship between deviance and satisfaction or situational well-being, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three step procedure. The strength of the indirect effect can be assessed by the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). This test is also recommended in multi-level modelling (Krull & MacKinnon, 1999). Table 3 shows the unconditional model, the model entering significant control variables and deviance, as well as the model adding negative emotion displayed as an additional predictor. Fig. 1 shows the unstandardized coefficients between deviance, negative emotion displayed and well-being in the interaction. The mediation was only partial, as the direct path between deviance and satisfaction remained significant (Sobel test ¼ 2 2.32, p , :05). These results support Hypothesis 2.3, and partially support Hypothesis 2.4. Additional analyses We tested for all cross-level interactions including dissonance or deviance. None yielded a significant result. Relationship with job satisfaction, job resignation and psychosomatic complaints Hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2 refer to the relationship of interaction between characteristics, job attitudes, and well-being, operationalized as job satisfaction, resigned attitude towards one’s job, and psychosomatic complaints. Interaction-related variables were aggregated for these analyses. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between study variables are presented in Table 4. Control variables As the sample was too small to run regression analyses with many predictors, we chose the following procedure to limit the number of variables included into the models to the necessary minimum: in a first step, we examined the influence of the three control variables (gender, service vs. non-service profession, and negative affectivity) on each of the dependent variables (job satisfaction, job resignation, psychosomatic complaints). The results are presented in Table 5. We then included only significant control variables into the regression models. Thus, profession and negative affectivity were included for job satisfaction and job resignation. No control variable was included for psychosomatic complaints. To test Hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2, separate hierarchical regression analyses with job satisfaction and resigned attitude towards one’s job were performed. For psychosomatic complaints, bivariate correlation coefficients were calculated, as none of the control variables was significant, and regression coefficients were identical to correlation coefficients. Table 5 displays the results. Model fit Level 2 Level 1 Intercept Negative affectivity Control Deviance Negative emotion displayed (NEGD) Variance Level 2 Variance Level 1 VAR control VAR deviance VAR NEGD COV control/intercept COV deviance/intercept COV deviance/control COV NEGD/intercept COV NEGD/contro COV NEGD deviance *2 loglikelihood 2256.87 .143(.039) .774(.039) 3.938 (.058)* Unconditional model 1968.56 2 .011(.016) 2 .081(.068) 2 .028(.037) .140(.037) .543(.029) .036(.013) .339(.174) 4.094(.057)* 2 .197(.089)* .085(.036)* 2 .726(.144)* Trimmed model .254(.096) .510(.028) .025(.010) .174 (.128) .072(.050) .006(.023) 2 .038(.093) 2 .056(.029) .099(.061) .013(.018) .007(.069) 3.648(0.101)* 2 .198(.086)* .092(.032)* 2 .475(.124)* 2 .488(.083)* Model including negative emotion displayed Note. Based on work related interactions. Parameter estimates are unstandardized coefficients, numbers in brackets are standard errors. The dependent variable is well-being in the interaction, rated on a scale from 1 to 5, higher numbers indicate better well-being. VAR ¼ Variance; COV ¼ Covariance; *p , :05. Random effects Fixed effects Variable Table 3. Emotional deviance and situational well-being in interactions Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 209 210 Franziska Tschan et al. Figure 1. Mediation model. Note. Numbers are unstandardized coefficients, with standard errors in brackets. The coefficient of the direct path between deviance and well-being is displayed in italics. Hypothesis 3.1 stated that the frequency of episodes involving emotion work as well as the frequency of emotional dissonance and emotional deviance with colleagues and clients should be related to lower job satisfaction, higher job resignation, and higher psychosomatic complaints. There were no effects for resigned attitude to one’s job, or for job satisfaction. However, the number of interactions requiring emotion work with colleagues, and more deviant or dissonant interactions with colleagues were related to more psychosomatic complaints. H3.2 repeated H3.1 with regard to proportions rather than frequencies. As shown in Table 6, the hypothesis was not supported with regard to job satisfaction. However, a higher proportion of emotion work in client interactions was related to higher job resignation. In the same vein, a higher proportion of dissonance, and, as a trend, a higher proportion of deviance in interactions with colleagues was related to higher resignation. With regard to psychosomatic complaints, a higher proportion of deviance in interactions with colleagues was related to more psychosomatic complaints, though not quite statistically significantly. Discussion The present study contributes to the understanding of emotion work in daily workrelated interactions. By focusing on interactions as they occur, it helps to shed light on hitherto widely neglected aspects of emotion work. Clients and co-workers The assumption that emotion work requirements are not restricted to clients but exist for interactions with co-workers as well was supported by the data. Interestingly, compared with participants in non-service professions, those in service professions reported not only more interactions with clients but also with co-workers. In addition, they reported more emotion work requirements in interactions with co-workers (44% of all interactions with co-workers) than did people in non-service occupations (19%). This possibly reflects different cooperation requirements in these professions, or a perception of more emotion work requirements in general. In light of our results, the special attention service jobs have received in research on emotion work seems justified, although the reason for this attention is only partly NA NA .483** – 1 .278* .238* .073 .237* 6.21 9.72 1.02 1.67 .83 1.21 .76 .75 .57 .61 2.13 3.06 3.96 4.02 .032 .028 .173 .222 .56 1.78 2.66 .36 .081 4.85 1.15 .030 2.70 1.01 2.054 NA NA SD 1 Note. þ p , :10, *p , :05, **p , :01. Weighted number of work related interactions. 2 Based on aggregated data N ¼ 69 – 78. 1. Gender 0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female 2. Occupation 0 ¼ nonservice, 1 ¼ service 3. Negative affectivity 4. Job satisfaction 5. Resigned attitude towards one’s work 6. Psychosomatic complaints 7. # of interactions with emotion work (display rules)1 8. # of interactions with dissonance1 9.# of interactions with deviance1 10. # of persons present in interaction2 11. felt control during the interaction2 12. satisfaction with the interaction2 13. well-being during interaction2 M .040 .000 .223 þ 2.084 .172 .276* .263* .155 .097 .203 þ 2.168 – 2 .010 2 .001 .202 þ .228 þ .246* 2 .006 2 .234 þ 2 .323** .020 .073 2 .037 2139 .130 2 .101 .165 2.369** 2.109 .023 .014 .377** .158 .299** .212 þ 2.072 .721** – 7 .097 .198 – 6 2.321** 2.033 2.061 .033 .017 2.002 2.065 .321** 2 .262* .093 5 – 4 – 2 .671** – 2 .399** .340** 3 Table 4. Means, standard deviations and correlations between study variables aggregated to person level 2.048 2.039 .285* .249* .135 – 8 – 10 2 .136 2 .031 11 2 .032 .096 2 .038 .207 þ .281* 2 .027 .069 – 9 .843** 12 Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 211 212 Franziska Tschan et al. Table 5. Regression analyses of satisfaction, resigned attitude towards one’s job and psychosomatic complaints on control variables Gender (0 ¼ male) Profession (0 ¼ non-service) Negative affectivity R2 adjusted Job satisfaction b Job resignation b psychosomatic complaints b .048 .300* 2.412*** .063 2 .266* .350** .172 .061 .077 .197*** .132** .009 Note. N ¼ 70, *p , :05, **p , :01 ***p , :001. correct. It is correct in that service work is, indeed, ‘people work’ (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002); it is not correct in that this people work refers not only to clients (which is the focus of most studies) but to a considerable degree also to co-workers. Authenticity, dissonance and deviance Our data show that in about 85% of the interactions with emotion requirements, participants experienced authenticity: they felt the emotions they were required to display, or at least they had developed such a routine in displaying it that they did not experience any dissonance. Interestingly, differences in the likelihood of dissonance and deviance were small, but deviance was more likely when the interaction partners were colleagues, and dissonance was more likely when they were clients. We had anticipated this result, because rules of relationships are different for interactions with colleagues than with clients (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). In particular, display rules may be less strict for colleagues than customers. For example, prosocial behaviour in organizations (so-called organizational citizenship behaviour) is discretionary, and not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system of the organization (Organ & Paine, 1999), whereas for interactions with customers, very explicit rules and expectations often exist. Second, the perceived time-span of the relationships is different (Gutek, 1995). In short encounters, which are typical for many employee-customer exchanges, the immediate affective tone is important; in longer lasting relationships (typical among co-workers), judgments of appropriateness and fairness are likely to be ‘averaged’ across a number of encounters, which allows for compensatory behaviour. All this may contribute to a higher proportion of deviance in co-worker interactions. Recent studies in another field are in accordance with this reasoning. Perrez and colleagues studied ‘display rules of social coping’, referring to rules that specify when coping is potentially dysfunctional for social relationships (e.g. being tense with others when stressed). They found that socially dysfunctional coping was more often found in conflict situations with family members than with interaction partners outside of the family. They interpret this as an indication of more lenient display rules in closer relationships (e.g. Perrez, Wilhelm, Schoebi, & Horner, 2001). This conclusion is supported by a study of Bongard and al’Absi (2003) in which the suppression of anger was higher at work whereas the expression of anger was higher in the family. Effects of emotion work have mostly been studied in terms of chronic and long-term effects. Conceptually, these studies have stable variables, which they tend to conceive as ‘independent’ (e.g. emotional dissonance) and dependent (e.g. well-being) variables. Such stable characteristics must, however, be made up of many episodes that involve Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 213 Table 6. Regression analyses on job resignation, job satisfaction, psychosomatic complaints Job resignation1 b Predictor variable Clients Colleagues Clients3 Colleagues3 Predictor variable Clients Colleagues Clients3 Colleagues3 Predictor variable Clients Colleagues Clients3 Colleagues3 # interactions with emotion-work requirements # interactions with dissonance # interactions with deviance # interactions w. emotion-work requirements # interactions with dissonance # interactions with deviance % interactions with emotion-work requirements % interactions with dissonance % interactions with deviance %interactions w. emotion-work requirements % interactions with dissonance % interactions with deviance # interactions with emotion-work requirements # interactions with dissonance # interactions with deviance # interactions w. emotion-work requirements # interactions with dissonance # interactions with deviance % interactions with emotion-work requirements % interactions with dissonance % interactions with deviance % interactions w. emotion-work requirements % interactions with dissonance % interactions with deviance # interactions with emotion-work requirements # interactions with dissonance # interactions with deviance # interactions w. emotion-work requirements # interactions with dissonance # interactions with deviance % interactions with emotion-work requirements % interactions with dissonance % interactions with deviance % interactions w. emotion-work requirements % interactions with dissonance % interactions with deviance DR2 second step .072 .005 .124 .014 .060 .004 .037 .001 .089 .007 .049 .002 .451** .198** 2 .152 .022 2 .039 .001 2 .014 .000 .290* .082* .283 þ .071 þ job satisfaction1 b DR2second step 2 .026 .001 2 .058 .003 2 .067 .004 .006 .000 2 .078 .006 2 .029 .001 2 .072 .005 .071 .005 2 .089 .008 .004 .000 2 .192 .036 2 .072 .005 psychosomatic complaints2 r .090 .086 .008 .243* .221* .271* .367* 2 .056 2 .044 .012 .105 .221 þ Note. N varies between 39 and 75. þ p , :10, *p , :05, **p , :01. 1 The control variables in the first step include profession and negative affectivity. 2 Bivariate correlation, one-tailed. 3 All calculations including proportions based on arcsine-transformed variables (Fleiss, 1981). 214 Franziska Tschan et al. emotion work, and associations with well-being should be found in such situations (Rochat, 2004). The results of this study indicate that emotion work requirements, dissonance and deviance are all associated with lower situational well-being, independent of whether the interaction partner was a co-worker or a client. Furthermore, in this study, we separated the effects of felt negative emotions from the effect of dissonance. This is an important aspect, as many dissonant interactions actually involve negative felt emotions (Totterdell & Holman, 2003), thus leading to potentially confounded effects. Our results show that the largest impact on situational well-being is due to felt negative emotions during the interaction. Even after controlling for felt negative emotions, however, dissonance further reduces well-being in the interaction. This indicates that dissonance is by itself a source of stress. The straining aspect of dissonance may be different from the strain due to deviance. According to the model of Zapf (2002), dissonance requires quite some regulation effort, which has been found to be a source of stress in many studies (Semmer, 2003; Semmer, Zapf, & Dunckel, 1995). In deviance, people show the felt emotion, despite the rules. If deviance is not voluntary, they may experience a lack of self-control (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), which may be detrimental to one’s self-image. It has been argued that deviance could be positive in the sense that it represents less strict rules and a higher control over the situation (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). However, acting out one’s negative emotions often does not result in better well-being but rather stirs negative emotions. Apart from the immediate effect on the actor’s emotions, however, the more negative evaluations of interactions involving deviance may be due to its effect on the ongoing transaction between the partners. Specifically, acting out negative emotions may not be appreciated, and may trigger unpleasant behaviour by the interaction partner. A mediation analysis revealed a partial mediation of displaying negative emotions. This implies that well-being is also lower when positive or neutral emotions are displayed in a deviant way. Perceived control during the interaction was related to higher well-being. This is in accordance with many studies that find control as a general aspect of working conditions related to lower strain (Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Semmer, 2000). Grebner et al. (2004) demonstrate how control as a stable condition influences coping success in stressful situations. Rafaeli (1989) has stressed the importance of situational control in interactions with clients. One would, therefore, expect an interaction effect between control, aspects of emotion work, and situational well-being, similarly to the classic studies of situational control of Glass and Singer (1972). However, such an interaction effect could not be found in this study. Nevertheless, the main effect of control does underscore the positive implications of controllability for well-being in interactions. Job-related attitudes and psychosomatic complaints Only a few effects on job-related attitudes and psychosomatic complaints were found in this study. In particular, job satisfaction was not related to the number, or proportion of interactions with emotion work requirements, dissonance, or deviance. Of course, the sample for these analyses is rather small and may lack power. Nevertheless, some other relationships were found, and these are interesting in two regards, concerning (1) the issue of client versus co-worker, and (2) the issue of frequency versus proportions. Of the eight relationships found (see Table 6), six refer to co-workers, and only two to clients. With all due caution that is appropriate in such a small sample, these results underscore the importance of interactions with co-workers as part of emotion work. Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 215 Of the eight effects found, five refer to proportions, and three to frequency. The fact that some effects were found for the proportion measure highlights the need for a more thorough consideration of the meaning of proportions versus frequencies in this type of study. Proportions may indicate that a certain number of aversive interactions may be compensated by enjoyable ones, and/or that a certain percentage of difficult interactions are seen as ‘normal’, and, as such, as legitimate (see also Semmer, McGrath, & Beehr, 2005). The absence of relationships with stable variables is in contradiction to the findings in this area, notably with regard to dissonance. Apart from the small sample, this may be due to the particular method used, which includes only interactions of 10 minutes or longer. In fact, in some of the professions studied (e.g. sales), the typical interaction with a customer may be well shorter than 10 minutes. This leads to an omission of reporting of many, if not most, customer-related interactions. Assessing emotion work with event-sampling methods Emotion work has been investigated typically with two methods: ethnographic and questionnaire studies. By using the RIR methodology, our study complements questionnaire studies by gathering data about specific interactions. This sheds light on short term effects of emotion work with regard to the quality of the interaction, and thus helps to bridge the gap between daily experiences, their overall perception, and their potential long-term effects. A second advantage of our assessment lies in the modification of the RIR to include a very precise operationalization of emotion work requirements, aspects of dissonance, and, especially, deviance (Rochat, 2004). The situational specificity of display rules can thus be taken into account. Furthermore, dissonance and deviance could be calculated from the answers given, rather than requiring a judgment by the participants. To our knowledge, not many researchers have actually attempted to measure deviance in emotion work (for an exception, see Zerbe, 2000). By showing that it does influence well-being in the situation, and that this influence is on top of that of negative emotions, our results underscore the necessity to include deviance in further studies of emotion work. However, the methodology chosen also has disadvantages. Participants were asked to report interactions of 10 minutes or more. The 10 minutes criterion had been suggested by the developers of the method in order to avoid overburdening the participants and to enhance compliance (Reis & Wheeler, 1991), thus is a trade off between loss of data and loss of participants. This may be an especially important problem for emotion work interactions, as many interactions with clients or co-workers will probably not last 10 minutes. It limits the generalization of the frequency of emotion work interactions, and the comparison of the number of interactions with clients and colleagues. A time-sampling instead of event-sampling strategy, as for example used by Totterdell and Holman (2003) could be chosen in order partially to overcome this problem. Emotion work and its effects are likely to remain important topics. Our research suggests (1) that emotion work is not only important in client-related interactions, but also in interactions with co-workers, (2) that many of the effects found with measures that assess stable conditions can also be found with situational measures, as emotion work requirements, dissonance, and deviance significantly lower the quality of interactions, and (3) that, in addition to dissonance, which has received most attention, deviance should be a focus in future research. 216 Franziska Tschan et al. Acknowledgments This research was supported by Grant # 5004-058452 of the Swiss National Science Foundation. We wish to thank Norbert Semmer; University of Berne; Joseph E. McGrath, University of UrbanaChampaign, John Nezlek, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their advice and helpful suggestions. References Adelmann, P. K. (1995). Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S. L. Sauter & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 371–381). Washington: APA. Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The rules of relationships. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships (pp. 63–84). London: Sage. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115. Baillod, J., & Semmer, N. (1994). Fluktuation und berufsverläufe bei computerfachleuten. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 38, 152–163. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Baumeister, R. F., Faber, J. E., & Wallace, H. M. (1999). Coping and ego depletion. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 50–69). New York: Oxford University Press. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control. How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. Bongard, S., & al’Absi, M. (2003). Domain-specific anger expression assessment and blood pressure during rest and acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1381–1402. Briner, R. B. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotion at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 323–346. Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives on people work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17–39. Bruggemann, A. (1974). Zur Unterscheidung verschiedener Formen von Arbeitszufriedenheit (Different forms of job satisfaction). Arbeit und Leistung, 28, 281–284. Côté, S (in press). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of Management Review. Crusco, A. H., & Wetzel, C. G. (1984). The Midas touch: The effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 512–517. Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284–294. Dormann, C., & Kaiser, D. M. (2002). Job conditions and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 257–283. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98. Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146–163. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed). New York: Wiley. Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1989). Impression management in organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press. Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 217 Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday. Goldstein, H., & Rasbash, J. (1996). Improved approximations for multilevel models with binary responses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 159, 505–513. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110. Grandey, A. A. (2003). When the show must go on: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96. Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 31–55. Grebner, S., Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., Kaiser-Probst, C., & Schlapbach, M. L. (2004). Stressful situations at work and in private life among young workers: An event-sampling approach. Social Indicators Research, 67, 11–49. Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., LoFaso, L., Gut, G., Kälin, W., & Elfering, A. (2003). Working conditions, well-being, and job-related attitudes among call center agents. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 341–365. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237. Gutek, B. A. (1995). The dynamics of service. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gutek, B. A., Cherry, B., & Groth, M. (1999). Gender and service delivery. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 47–68). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hall, E. J. (1993). Smiling, deferring, and flirting: Doing gender by giving good service. Work and Occupations, 20, 452–471. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jones, K. (1993). Using multilevel models for survey analysis. Journal of the Market Research Society, 35, 249–265. Kälin, W., Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Tschan, F., Dauwalder, J. -P., Heunert, S., & Crettaz von Roten, F. (2000). Work characteristics and well-being of Swiss apprentices entering the labor market. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 272–290. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. King, L. A., & Emmons, R. A. (1990). Conflict over emotional expression: Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 864–877. Krull, J. L., & Mackinnon, D.P (1999). Multilevel mediation modelling in group-based intervention studies. Evaluation Review, 23, 418–444. Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor: The heart of Hochschild’s work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 8–49. Kunda, G., & van Maanen, J. (1999). Changing scripts at work: Managers and professionals. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 64–80. Leary, M. R. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Colorado: Westview Press. Leidner, R. (1999). Emotional labor in service work. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 81–95. Martin, S. E. (1999). Police force or police service? Gender and emotional labor. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 111–126. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 90–91. 218 Franziska Tschan et al. Mohr, G. B. (1991). Fünf Subkonstrukte psychischer Befindensbeeinträchtigungen bei Industriearbeitern: Auswahl und Entwicklung. In S. Greif, E. Bamberg & N. Semmer (Eds.), Psychischer stress am Arbeitsplatz (pp. 91–119). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986–1010. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 257–274. Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785. Nezlek, J. B. (2003). Using multilevel random coeffiecient modeling to analyze social interaction diary data. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 437–469. Nezlek, J. B., Richardson, D. S., Green, L. R., & Schatten-Jones, E. C. (2002). Psychological wellbeing and day-to-day social interaction among older adults. Personal Relationships, 9, 57–71. Nezlek, J. B., Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1983). Studies of social participation. In H. T. Reis (Ed.), Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction. New directions for methodology of social and behavioral sciences, Vol. 15 (pp. 57–73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Oegerli, K (1984). Arbeitszufriedenheit (Job satisfaction). University of Berne: Unpublished thesis. Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 14 (pp. 337–367). Chichester: Wiley. Ostell, A. (1996). Managing dysfunctional emotions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 33(4), 525–557. Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur. Zur Validität des Fünf-FaktorenModells der Persönlichkeit (Language and structure of personality. Validity of the five-factor model of personality). Regensburg: Roderer. Peeters, M. C. W. (1994). Supportive interactions and stressful events at work: An eventrecording approach. Nijmegen: Quickprint. Perrez, M., Wilhelm, P., Schoebi, D., & Horner, M. (2001). Simultaneous computer assisted assessment of causal attribution and social coping in families. In I. Fahrenberg & M. Myrtek (Eds.), Progress in ambulatory assessment (pp. 25–43). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computer, 36(4), 717–731. Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of supermarket cashiers. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 245–273. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as a part of the work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23–37. Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plevis, I., Healy, M., Woodhouse, G., Draper, D., Langford, I., & Lewis, T. (2000). A user’s guide to MLwinN, Version 2.1. London: University of London, Institute of Education. Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1204–1217. Reis, H. T., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester interaction record. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 269–318. Rochat, S (2002). Reflections around the categorization of professions. Neuchâtel: University of Neuchâtel, Groupe de Psychologie Appliquée, Working paper 07-2002. Rochat, S (2004). Emotion work in daily interactions at work. An event-sampling approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Neuchâtel: University of Neuchâtel. Emotion work in interactions at the workplace 219 Rutter, D. R., & Fielding, P. J. (1988). Sources of occupational stress: An examination of British prison officers. Work and Stress, 2, 291–299. Schallberger, U., & Venetz, M. (1999). Kurzversion des MRS-Inventars von Ostendorf (1990) zur Erfassung der fünf grossen Persönlichkeitsfaktoren. Zürich: Department of Psychology. Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 163–183. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Learned helplessness: Depression, development and death. New York: Freeman. Semmer, N. K. (2000). Control at work: Issues of specificity, generality, and legitimacy. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness (pp. 714–741). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Semmer, N. K. (2003). Individual differences, work stress, and health. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. Winnubst & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (2nd ed) (pp. 51–86). Chichester: Wiley. Semmer, N. K., McGrath, J. E., & Beehr, T. A (2005). Conceptual issues in research on stress and health. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of Stress, Medicine and Health (2nd ed.). (pp. 1–43). London: CRC Press. Semmer, N., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1995). Assessing stress at work: A framework and an instrument. In O. Svane & C. Johansen (Eds.), Work and health – Scientific basis of progress in the working environment (pp. 105–113). Luxembourg: European Commission. Smith, P. (1992). The emotional labour of nursing: Its impact on interpersonal relations, management, and the educational environment in nursing. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Steinberg, R. J. (1999). Emotional labor in job evaluation: Redesigning compensation practices. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 143–157. Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressing emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245–268. Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 55–73. Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Inversin, L. (2004). Work related and private social interactions at work. Social Indicators Research, 67, 145–182. Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational culture. In L. L. Cummings & B. W. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 11, pp. 43–103). Greenwich: JAI Press. Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205–232. Wheeler, L., & Nezlek, J. (1977). Sex differences in social participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 742–754. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Nezlek, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 943–953. Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237–268. Zapf, D., Isic, A., Bechtoldt, M., & Blau, P. (2003). What is typical for call center jobs? Job characteristics, and service interactions in different call centers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4), 311–340. Zapf, D., Seifert, C., Schmutte, B., Mertini, H., & Holz, M. (2001). Emotion work and job stressors and their effects on burnout. Psychology and Health, 16, 527–545. 220 Franziska Tschan et al. Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion work as a source of stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 371–400. Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotional dissonance and employee well-being. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 189–214). Westport, CT: Quorum.