This article was downloaded by: [University of Victoria]

On: 08 April 2015, At: 14:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the

Advancement of Psychological Theory
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpli20

Smiling for a Wage: What Emotional Labor Teaches Us

About Emotion Regulation
a
Alicia A. Grandey
a
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Published online: 09 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Alicia A. Grandey (2015) Smiling for a Wage: What Emotional Labor Teaches Us About Emotion
Regulation, Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 26:1, 54-60, DOI:
10.1080/1047840X.2015.962444

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.962444

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Psychological Inquiry, 26: 54–60, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1047-840X print / 1532-7965 online
DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2015.962444
Smiling for a Wage: What Emotional Labor Teaches Us About Emotion
Regulation
Alicia A. Grandey
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
“I’ve never thought of it that way before!” The
graduate student who said this to me seemed sin-
cerely surprised to learn about emotional labor, the
study of emotion regulation in the workplace. Repre-
senting industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology, I
had just followed James Gross at a cross-cutting
theme session on emotion regulation at the Associa-
tion of Psychological Science conference. Emotional
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
labor research in I-O has grown exponentially in the
last decade (Grandey, Diefendorff, & Rupp, 2012), so
I was thrilled that I-O psychology was “at the table”
at the conference, as well as represented in Gross’s
focal article (see Gross, Figure 2). Clearly, though,
based on the graduate student’s reaction to my pre-
sentation, more awareness in psychology is needed
about emotional labor and how what it can teach us
about emotion regulation.
In this commentary, I first demonstrate the concep-
tual, methodological, and relational overlap between
emotional labor and emotion regulation. I then show
the value of emotional labor to emotion regulation, in
ways directly raised in Gross’s target article. Specifi-
cally, emotional labor research provides evidence for
the “real-world relevance” of emotion regulation and
provides answers to questions about the individual,
social, and contextual moderators of emotion regula-
tion effectiveness.
How Does Emotional Labor Relate to Emotion
Regulation?
To be able to argue that emotion regulation
researchers should use evidence from emotional labor
scholars, I need to justify the similarity in what we
are studying. Although there seem to be differences
in the focal constructs, methods, and outcomes of
interest (see Table 1 for summary), these are mostly
semantic, not substantive, differences.
Focal Constructs
Emotional labor was a term coined by sociologist
Arlie Hochschild (1983) in her seminal book The
Managed Heart, where she differentiated managing
emotions in the private domain (i.e., with family,
54
friends) from managing emotions with customers as
part of an economic exchange at work. Emotional job
requirements—illustrated by the “service with a
smile” expectation in many jobs—elicit the use of
dramaturgical techniques from employees. Hochs-
child identified two main techniques in her observa-
tions: deep acting (i.e., perspective taking or self-talk
in order to appear “real”) and surface acting (i.e., hid-
ing and faking expressions like a mask). In 2000
(Grandey, 2000), I proposed that these two forms of
emotional labor were similar to a recently developed
model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998). Specifi-
cally, deep acting is a type of antecedent-focused
emotion regulation (i.e., reappraisal, cognitive
change), and surface acting is a type of response-
focused emotion regulation (i.e., expressive suppres-
sion). This conceptual overlap encouraged I-O psy-
chologists to draw on the theories and emerging
research of emotion regulation when studying
emotional labor.
As a caveat, the comparisons are not a perfect
match. First, surface acting is not just suppressing but
also amplifying and faking emotions (Grandey,
2000), and specifically suppressing negative and
amplifying positive emotions; however, conclusions
seem to be the same even when suppressing positive
and amplifying negative is necessary (Glomb &
Tews, 2004). Second, deep acting is typically mea-
sured as attempts to change feelings to appear genu-
ine (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003) rather than reappraisal
specifically; however, recent research directly mea-
suring reappraisal and perspective taking draws con-
clusions similar to deep acting (Grandey, Dickter, &
Sin, 2004; Rupp, McCance, Spencer, & Sonntag,
2008).
Focal Methods
One clear distinction across the emotion regula-
tion and emotional labor research domains is
methodological paradigms used, with emotion reg-
ulation relying on experimental manipulations with
students in the laboratory (e.g., instructions to sup-
press, reappraise, or no instructions; Richards &
Gross, 2000), and emotional labor usually self-
reported in a survey of service employees (i.e.,

Table 1. Comparing Emotion Regulation and Emotional Labor Research.
Focal constructs
Regulating feelings
Regulating expressions
Focal method
Data collection
Sample
Focal outcomes
Personal
Social
Note. These refer to the most common approaches for each domain: These constructs, methods, and outcomes, as well as others not shown, are
studied in both domains.
average frequency of surface and deep acting at
work; Brotheridge & Lee, 2003). Of course, this is
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
an overgeneralization: Emotion regulation is also
studied as a self-reported tendency for reappraisal
and suppression (Gross & John, 2003), and emo-
tional labor has been manipulated in experimental
work simulations (e.g., Goldberg & Grandey,
2007; Trougakos, Jackson, & Beal, 2011). Overall,
the focus on lab experiments (emotion regulation)
versus field surveys (emotional labor) should not
be seen as a constraint on comparing these litera-
tures; given the internal and external validity
trade-offs inherent in each method, comparing
results is highly valuable because it permits more
confidence in our conclusions about emotion
regulation.
Focal Outcomes
Although the specific outcome variables may be
different, the conclusions about emotion regulation
effectiveness tend to be similar across domains. A
meta-analysis of emotional labor shows that (a)
surface acting is “bad” for personal well-being, in
the form of job burnout and health, whereas (b)
deep acting is “good” for job-related outcomes, in
the form of positive work attitudes and interper-
sonal performance (H€ ulsheger & Schewe, 2011).
A meta-analysis of lab-based emotion regulation
research suggests similar conclusions, though
slightly divergent reasons for the good/bad dichot-
omy: Suppression was more strongly linked to
effective expressive control, whereas reappraisal
was more strongly linked to improved mood
(Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). Overall, how-
ever, both emotion regulation and emotional labor
researchers tend to conclude that deep acting/reap-
praisal is “good” and surface acting/suppression is
“bad,” an oversimplification that Gross notes in
his focal article and I discuss more next.
COMMENTARIES
Emotion Regulation Emotional Labor
Reappraisal Deep acting
Suppression Surface acting
Lab experiments Field surveys
College students Service employees
Moods/Stress Job satisfaction/Burnout
Relational perceptions Performance ratings
Conclusions
For the purposes of this commentary, we can
say that both emotion regulation and emotional
labor researchers are interested in modifying feel-
ings (i.e., deep acting/reappraisal) and modifying
expressions (i.e., surface acting/suppression) when
interacting with others. Although there are differ-
ent labels as shown in Table 1, there are more
similarities than differences in conceptualization,
methods, and outcomes across the emotion regula-
tion and emotional labor domains. Thus, I now
turn to how emotional labor research can inform
emotion regulation research by reviewing findings
related to the growth points posed by Gross’s (this
issue) focal article.
What Does Emotional Labor Tell Us About
Emotion Regulation?
Gross raises a number of questions and future
directions for the field of emotion regulation.
Emotional labor research can answer some of
those questions and further advance the field of
emotion regulation. Specifically, emotional labor
research clearly illustrates (a) the practical “real-
world relevance” of emotion regulation in terms of
chronic health and job performance implications
(Gross, this issue, p. 41) and (b) how individual,
dyadic, and contextual factors moderate emotion
regulation effectiveness (Gross, this issue, p. 33).
Real-World Relevance of Emotion Regulation
Much of the emotion regulation research has been
conducted in the lab with a focus on acute stress/emo-
tion and social perceptions, though as Gross discusses,
there are exciting real-world implications emerging
(i.e., marital and national conflicts). I-O psychology is
interested in both employee and organizational
55
 COMMENTARIES
well-being, and identifying practical implications from
I-O psychology research. Emotional labor extends
emotion regulation by linking surface and deep acting
to “real-world” outcomes (Grandey, 2000): long-term
indicators of employee stress and health (i.e., job burn-
out, job dissatisfaction) and job-related performance
and outcomes (i.e., turnover, performance, tips).
Implications for chronic employee health. Going
beyond the short-term effect of emotion regulation as
found in the lab, emotional labor research shows that
the way employees regulate their emotions at work
has implications for health. Surface acting feels inau-
thentic and takes self-regulatory energy, both of which
are detrimental to health in the long run. On days that
administrative workers surface acted more they felt
more burned out due to worsened moods (Judge,
Woolf, & Hurst, 2009). In field surveys, the more fre-
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
quently employees surface act, the more job burnout
and somatic symptoms they experienced (for a meta-
analytic review, see H€ ulsheger & Schewe, 2011).
These detrimental effects of surface acting are still
present when controlling for affective traits and job
requirements (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013) and
when studied longitudinally (C^ ote & Morgan, 2002;
H€ulsheger, Langa, & Maier, 2010). Moreover, emo-
tional labor strain can spill over to the home. On days
when bus drivers surface acted, they reported more
anxiety, which explained subsequent work–family
conflict and insomnia (Wagner, Barnes, & Scott,
2014). Overall, the findings extend emotion regulation
lab-based research to show that chronically faking and
suppressing emotions as part of the job has chronic
health consequences.
Deep acting should reframe how one feels at work,
and in fact deep acting employees tend to be more
satisfied with and feel more competent at their jobs
(H€ulsheger & Schewe, 2011). At the same time, deep
acting did not help with daily anxiety and job burnout
(Wagner et al., 2014), was negatively related to daily
positive mood and job satisfaction (Judge et al.,
2009), and was positively related to somatic symp-
toms (H€ ulsheger & Schewe, 2011). These findings fit
with Hochschild’s (1983) argument that deep acting
“involves deceiving oneself as much as deceiving
others” (p. 33) such that the actor loses touch with
him- or herself. In other words, there may be personal
long-term costs when employees are modifying feel-
ings for organizational goals that are unrecognized in
the short-term laboratory experiments.
Implications for interpersonal job performance.
Emotional labor can be performed to achieve both
personal and organizational goals (Diefendorff &
Gosserand, 2003). Although both deep and surface
acting achieve the goal of managing expressions
with others, deep acting is expected to be more
56
effective due to perceived authenticity of the
expression (Grandey, 2003; Hochschild, 1983). In
the workplace, this has implications for job perfor-
mance, a key indicator of success in organizations.
In meta-analytic reviews, deep acting is linked to
higher interpersonal performance ratings, even
when controlling for affective traits and job
requirements; surface acting is weakly negatively
related (H€ulsheger & Schewe, 2011; Kammeyer-
Mueller et al., 2013). Using deep acting enhances
how customers, coworkers, and supervisors rate
team-based or service performance, beyond the
personal tendency to feel positively (Diefendorff,
Erickson, Grandey, & Dahling, 2011; Grandey,
2003; H€ulsheger et al., 2010; Ozcelik, 2013). At
the dyadic level of analysis, deep acting with a
customer improves that customer’s satisfaction
with the service, because the employee is per-
ceived to be intrinsically motivated to help the
customer (Groth, Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009).
Other indicators of job performance are also
improved by deep acting. Restaurant servers who
tended to use more deep acting made more money in
tips, suggesting a “real-world” financial outcome of
emotion regulation (Chi, Grandey, Diamond, &
Krimmel, 2011). Another indicator of good perfor-
mance is retention or remaining with the company.
Employees who tend to use deep acting tend to be
motivated to stay, whereas surface acting is linked to
quitting due to job burnout (Chau, Dahling, Levy, &
Diefendorff, 2009; Goodwin, Groth, & Frenkel,
2011). Based on these descriptions, surface acting
may seem “bad” for performance, but it depends on
other factors as I discuss next.
Implications for organizational interventions.
In the focal article, Gross raises the “compelling need
to formulate and test interventions” for effective emo-
tion regulation (p. 19). One of the goals of I-O
research is to make intervention suggestions to man-
agement that will maximize both employee and orga-
nizational well-being. The aforementioned results
demonstrate that management cannot simply demand
“service with a smile,” as the effort to put on the
smile may, ironically, have costs to the person and
the performance. Management can try to select for
extraverted and positive people (see next section), but
this is not always feasible or sufficient. Given the
apparent benefits for deep acting to performance,
another implication for management is to develop
and train those regulatory skills. Intervention studies
have shown that emotion regulation skills can be
trained and the training improves well-being and
interpersonal outcomes (Kotsou, Nelis, Gregoire, &
Milkolajczak, 2011); yet such training is improve
mood and reduce the strain from emotional labor
(H€ulsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013). This
 COMMENTARIES
is a growth point area that I-O psychologists are par-
ticularly suited to address.
Moderators of Emotion Regulation Effectiveness
The aforementioned consequences for chronic
health and job performance support the premise that
surface acting is “good” and deep acting is “bad”;
however, in reality things are not that simple, as
Gross (this issue) points out (p. 1). Emotional labor
research has extensively studied features that moder-
ate emotion regulation effectiveness, which provides
some answers to questions raised in the focal article
(Gross, this issue, p. 1). As Gross notes, effective reg-
ulation depends on the individual, dyad/target, and
context.
Individual-level moderators. Surface acting
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
tends to predict employee distress and is unrelated to
performance; however, these outcomes are moderated
by how congruent the regulation is with one’s abili-
ties and values. For example, extroverted employees
do not find surface acting to be distressing and obtain
higher interpersonal performance and tips when using
it; introverts do not fare as well (Bono & Vey, 2007;
Chi et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2009). Surface acting is
also more distressing when employees feel ineffica-
cious at regulating or they highly value self-expres-
sion, because faking emotions is incongruent with
self-beliefs (Pugh, Groth, & Hennig-Thurau, 2011).
Social identity also plays a role, in that employees
who strongly identify with the organizational goals,
or the goals are consistent with one’s cultural iden-
tity, are less upset and depleted from suppressing
their personal feelings at work (Schaubroeck & Jones,
2000). For example, employees in Asian countries
seem to be less burned out from surface acting than
American employees (Allen, Diefendorff, & Ma,
2014), an extension of the lab-based evidence that
collectivistic values neutralize stress from emotional
suppression (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2009). Overall,
surface acting/suppression is bad for health and inter-
personal performance only when it is incongruent
with the individual’s traits, skills, and values.
Dyadic/Relational moderators. Emotion regula-
tion is needed to function effectively with people,
and the workplace is an inherently social context.
The workplace provides interesting built-in relational
variation in status differentials (i.e., subordinates,
coworkers, supervisors) and closeness (i.e., first-time
encounters with clients, ongoing relationships with
coworkers); thus, we can learn how emotion regula-
tion works differently based on relational
characteristics.
Greater regulation over expressions is needed in
dyadic interactions when the other person has more
relative power and low intimacy (i.e., supervisors, cli-
ents), compared to people with equal and lower rela-
tive power and more intimacy (i.e., coworkers;
Diefendorff, Morehart, & Gabriel, 2010). Customers
as the targets of emotion regulation are particularly
interesting, because they can range from first-time
encounters (similar to lab studies) to ongoing clients.
In fact, surface acting’s effect changes depending on
the relationship. Controlling for trait and state affect,
service providers engaging in more surface acting
(suppressing negative) had less satisfied customers
when they were unfamiliar with each other, but these
consequences were weakened when they had closer
relationships (Wang & Groth, 2014). Surface acting
also did not harm service performance judgments
when customers were inaccurate detecting the inau-
thenticity (Groth et al., 2009), supporting that per-
ceiving inauthenticity is key to the social detriment
of suppression/surface acting (English & John, 2013).
Finally, surface acting helped service performance
for Black employees but not their White counterparts,
and the reverse was true for deep acting, suggesting
that social characteristics affect emotion regulation
effectiveness (Grandey & Houston, 2013).
Contextual moderators. Most lab-based studies
provide external motivation for emotion regulation,
in that the research administrator gives explicit
instructions for suppression or reappraisal. A unique
aspect of the work context is that motives for regulat-
ing emotions can be externalized, due to professional
norms and financial consequences, as well as internal-
ized from personal and relational motives. In general,
expectations for emotion regulation are stronger and
more rigid at work than in other social contexts
(Moran, Diefendorff, & Greguras, 2013), yet work-
places vary in the extent to which external controls
are in place.
Management control was central to assumptions
about distress from emotional labor (Hochschild,
1983). Similarly, surface acting was less distressing
and dissatisfying for French and U.S. employees who
had high job autonomy compared to those with less
autonomy, assumedly because they were choosing
how to achieve the emotional goals of their job
(Grandey, Fisk, & Steiner, 2005). A related question
has been whether financial incentives for emotional
labor is perceived as a form of management control,
or as an indication of its value to the workplace. In a
laboratory simulation, financial incentives for emo-
tional labor neutralized the link of surface acting with
dissatisfaction, and among insurance sales workers in
Taiwan, surface acting was positively related to job
satisfaction when financial incentives were provided
for emotional labor (Grandey, Chi, & Diamond,
2013). The organization can provide social rewards
as well to reduce strain from surface acting. A
57
 COMMENTARIES
workplace climate that feels safe and supportive neu-
tralized the job burnout from hospital workers’ sur-
face acting with patients (Grandey, Foo, Groth, &
Goodwin, 2012) and buffered dissatisfaction from
emotion regulation of retail workers (Duke, Good-
man, Treadway, & Breland, 2009). Overall, regulat-
ing expressions “for a wage” may be more satisfying
and less distressing because there is an opportunity
for both social and financial gains.
Other “Growth Points” and Conclusions
In emotional labor research, scholars are pursuing
some of the growth points that Gross recommends.
One is to move away from the two-dimensional
dichotomy and explore other emotion regulation
strategies identified by Gross (this issue). In fact,
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
emotional labor research has found that many other
emotion regulation strategies are used by employees
(Diefendorff, Richard, & Yang, 2008), and more
work in this area has been encouraged (Grandey &
Gabriel, in press). Another growth point is to consider
how emotion regulation tactics may work in dynamic
and joint ways. Employees whose use of surface act-
ing varied from day-to-day experienced more dissat-
isfaction and work withdrawal than using surface
acting at more stable levels, supporting the value of
emotion regulation variability (Scott, Barnes, &
Wagner, 2012). Another approach is emotion regula-
tion latent profiles (Gabriel, Daniels, Diefendorff, &
Greguras, in press), a person-focused approach
assessing how surface and deep acting are jointly
used. For example, some employees chronically
report using high levels of surface acting and deep
acting (“Regulators”), whereas others tend to not use
either (“Non-Actors”), and these groups differed in
their well-being outcomes.
One point of note is that emotional labor researchers
are beginning to innovate measurement of emotion reg-
ulation in ways that match the new theoretical model
outlined in Gross’s focal article. To apply his new mul-
tilevel and cyclical model of the emotion regulation
process, measurements of emotion regulation in a nar-
row space of time are needed. As previously men-
tioned, scholars of emotional labor use within-person
approaches (i.e., experience sampling, daily diaries)
that link the variations in surface and deep acting over
time with personal and organizational outcomes. A
more microlevel way to test Gross’s new model is by
using “online” momentary assessments, similar to con-
tinuous rating research Gross has done on experienced
emotions (e.g., Mauss, Levenson, McCarter, Wilhelm,
& Gross, 2005; Mauss et al., 2011). In an innovative
new study, respondents performed emotion regulation
in a call center simulation with manipulated emotional
interactions from a confederate customer caller and
58
then listened to a recording of the call while providing
continuous ratings (i.e., recorded every 200 ms) of their
felt emotions, surface acting, and deep acting (Gabriel,
2013). This approach models how new emotion regula-
tion ideas can be tested while still offering clear real-
world implications.
As I described in a recent review of emotional
labor, there is still much to do to understand emotion
regulation at work and how it may function differently
when performed “for a wage” (Grandey & Gabriel, in
press). The field of emotional labor has learned much
from emotional regulation theory and research. Now,
we also have much to “give back” to the field of emo-
tion regulation. May we continue to communicate and
learn from each other in the years to come.
Acknowledgments
I thank Allison Gabriel for her friendly review of
an earlier draft of this commentary.
Note
Address correspondence to Alicia A. Grandey,
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State
University, 620 Moore Building, University Park, PA
16802-3106. E-mail: aag6@psu.edu
References
Allen, J. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Ma, Y. (2014). Differences in
emotional labor across cultures: A comparison of Chinese and
US service workers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29,
21–35.
Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional per-
formance: Extraversion, neuroticism, and self-monitoring.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 177–192.
Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation
of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76, 365–379.
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2009). Does expressing
your emotions raise or lower your blood pressure? The answer
depends on cultural context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 40, 510–517.
Chau, S. L., Dahling, J. J., Levy, P. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009).
A predictive study of emotional labor and turnover. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 1151–1163.
Chi, N.-W., Grandey, A., Diamond, J., & Krimmel, K. (2011).
Want a tip? Service performance as a function of extraversion
and emotion regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology.
C^ote, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the
association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and
intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
947–962.
Diefendorff, J., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A., & Dahling, J. J.
(2011). Emotional display rules as work unit norms: A multi-
level analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 170–186.
 COMMENTARIES
Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the
emotional labor process: a control theory perspective. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24, 945–959.
Diefendorff, J. M., Morehart, J., & Gabriel, A. S. (2010). The influ-
ence of power and solidarity on emotional display rules at
work.. Motivation & Emotion, 34, 120–132.
Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Yang, J. (2008). Linking emo-
tion regulation strategies to affective events and negative emo-
tions at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 498–508.
Duke, A. B., Goodman, J. M., Treadway, D. C., & Breland, J. W.
(2009). Perceived organizational support as a moderator of
emotional labor/outcomes relationships. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 39, 1013–1034.
English, T., & John, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social
effects of emotion regulation: The mediating role of authen-
ticity for individual differences in suppression. Emotion, 13,
314–329.
Gabriel, A. S. (2013). Emotional labor within a performance epi-
sode: Understanding when and why employees change
between emotion regulation techniques with customers
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Akron,
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
Akron, OH. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://etd.
ohiolink.edu/
Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J.
J. (in press). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis
of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology.
doi: 10.1037/a0037408
Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptu-
alization and scale development. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 64, 1–23.
Goldberg, L., & Grandey, A. (2007). Display rules versus display
autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and
task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 12, 301–318.
Goodwin, R. E., Groth, M., & Frenkel, S. J. (2011). Relationships
between emotional labor, job performance, and turnover.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 538–548.
Grandey, A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new
way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 5, 95–110.
Grandey, A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface and
deep acting as predictors of emotional exhaustion and service
delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96.
Grandey, A., Chi, N.-W., & Diamond, J. (2013). Show me the
money! Do financial rewards for performance enhance or
undermine the satisfaction from emotional labor? Personnel
Psychology, 66, 569–612.
Grandey, A., Dickter, D., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not
always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of
service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
397–418.
Grandey, A., Diefendorff, J., & Rupp, D. E. (2012). Bringing emo-
tional labor into focus: A Review and integration of three
research lenses In A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E.
Rupp (Eds.), Emotional labor in the 21st Century: Diverse
perspectives on emotion regulation at work (pp. 3–27). New
York, NY: Psychology Press/Routledge.
Grandey, A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must “service
with a smile” be stressful? The moderating role of personal
control for American and French employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 893–904.
Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free
to be you and me: A climate of authenticity alleviates burnout
from emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 17, 1–14.
Grandey, A., & Gabriel, A. (in press). Emotional labor at a cross-
roads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organi-
zational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2.
Grandey, A., & Houston, L. (2013, April). Keepin’ it real: Race and
performance ratings of positive displays. Paper presented at
the Symposium at the Society of Industrial-Organizational
Psychologists, Houston, TX.
Gross, J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An inte-
grative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Gross, J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships,
and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 348–362.
Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer reac-
tions to emotional labor: The roles of employee acting strate-
gies and customer detection accuracy. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 958–974.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization
of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
H€ulsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang,
J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role
of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion,
and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
310–325.
H€ulsheger, U. R., Langa, J. W. B., & Maier, G. W. (2010). Emo-
tional labor, strain, and performance: Testing reciprocal rela-
tionships in a longitudinal panel study. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 505–521.
H€ulsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits
of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of
research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16,
361–389.
Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional
labor more difficult for some than for others? A multi-
level, experience sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62,
57–88.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Rubenstein, A. L., Long, D. M., Odio,
M. A., Buckman, B. R., Zhang, Y., & Halvorsen-Ganepola,
M. D. K. (2013). A meta-analytic structural model of disposi-
tional affectivity and emotional labor. Personnel Psychology,
66, 47–90.
Kotsou, I., Nelis, D., Gregoire, J., & Milkolajczak, M. (2011).
Emotional plasticity: Conditions and effects of improving
emotional competence in adulthood. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 96, 827–839.
Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., &
Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie that binds? Coherence among emo-
tion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion, 5, 175–
190.
Mauss, I. B., Shallcross, A. J., Troy, A. S., John, O. P., Ferrer, E.,
Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Don’t hide your happi-
ness! Positive emotion dissociation, social connectedness, and
psychological functioning. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 738–748. doi:10.1037/a0022410
Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2013). Under-
standing emotional display rules at work and outside of work:
The effects of country and gender. Motivation and Emotion,
37, 323–334.
Ozcelik, H. (2013). An empirical analysis of surface acting in intra-
organizational relationships. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34, 291–309.
Pugh, D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able
to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between
emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 377–390.
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and
memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410–424.
Rupp, D., McCance, A. S., Spencer, S., & Sonntag, K. (2008). (In)
Justice and emotional labor: The role of perspective taking
and anger. Journal of Management, 34, 903–924
59
 COMMENTARIES
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.
Scott, B. A., Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. (2012). Chameleonic
or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor
variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 905–926.
Trougakos, J. P., Jackson, C. L., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Service with-
out a smile: Comparing the consequences of neutral and posi-
tive display rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 350–362.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 14:48 08 April 2015
60
Wagner, D. T., Barnes, C. M., & Scott, B. A. (2014). Driving it
home: How workplace emotional labor harms employee home
life. Personnel Psychology, 67, 487–516.
Wang, K. L., & Groth, M. (2014). Buffering the negative effects of
employee surface acting: The moderating role of employee–
customer relationship strength and personalized services.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 341–350.
Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling:
A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from
the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 138, 775–808.