Do You Have a Minute…? How Emotions Shape the Experience and Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions

Do You Have A Minute…? How Emotions Shape the Experience and Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Management

of the Carl H. Lindner College of Business

Harshad Puranik

M.M.S., University of Mumbai, India

B.E., University of Pune, India

24th March 2019

Committee Chair: Heather C. Vough, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Work intrusions are interruptions initiated by others that cause the employee to at least temporarily halt an on-going task. Traditionally, researchers have focused on how the interruption of an ongoing task negatively affects employee attitudes, performance and well- being. Some scholars, however, have suggested that work intrusions can also be beneficial to the interrupted employee. So, the question then arises: When, why, and for whom are daily work intrusions harmful or beneficial? To answer this question, I adopt an event-level approach that positions work intrusions as workplace events that affect interrupted employees either negatively or positively based on the discrete emotion—annoyance or happiness—elicited by them.

Integrating self-regulation theory and appraisal theory of emotion, I suggest that apart from a work intrusion’s impact on an ongoing task, the quality of social interaction with the interrupter also influences the discrete emotion elicited by the intrusion. This discrete emotion is further theorized to lead to individual and interpersonal outcomes via its associated action tendencies. I also test individual, contextual, and relational boundary conditions that can shape these relationships. Overall, I adopt a balanced conceptualization of work intrusions that extends prior research via a focus on the social aspects of work intrusions, the role of discrete emotions, and an examination of interpersonal behaviors and positive consequences of work intrusions.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very thankful for the past five years in the Management Department at Lindner

College of Business, University of Cincinnati. I had an opportunity to work with some amazing faculty members who have helped me develop and grow as a researcher and teacher. First and foremost, I want to thank my adviser Heather Vough for the instrumental role she has played in shaping my knowledge, ability, and attitude to help me become the academic that I am today. I am very grateful for your wisdom, patience, support, and encouragement, without which this degree would not have been possible. I want to thank Joel Koopman for being my mentor and guide. You have been selfless and generous with your time and knowledge over the past five years and have greatly shaped the way I approach research. I also want to thank my other committee members Suzanne Masterson and Jaime Windeler for their insightful feedback and thought-provoking questions that helped in improving the overall quality of this study. I would also like to thank another faculty member, Elaine Hollensbe, for her constant support and encouragement throughout the past five years. I am also grateful to all my University of

Cincinnati doctoral colleagues for their camaraderie, friendship, and support. Finally, I want to thank my parents, family members and friends for their continued support and faith in me over the past five years. Making you proud is what drives me and brings joy to my life. Most of all, I want to thank my wife Shivangi for believing in me through the past five years and for her constant encouragement and support. I feel blessed to have you in my life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... ii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... ix INTRODUCTION ...... 10 Contributions...... 13 WORK INTRUSIONS ...... 16 Table 1 – Jett and George’s (2003) Typology of Workplace Interruptions ...... 17 The Experience and Outcomes of Work Intrusions ...... 18 Opportunities to Expand the Current Work Intrusions Research ...... 20 Social and relational dynamics and interpersonal outcomes of daily work intrusions...... 20 Role of discrete emotions...... 21 Lack of focus on the interrupting/alternate tasks...... 22 Positive outcomes of work intrusions...... 23 THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES...... 24 Self-regulation Theory...... 25 Appraisal Theory of Emotion ...... 26 Figure 1 – Overarching Model of Daily Workplace Intrusions, Emotional Consequences, and Employee Outcomes...... 29 Impact on the Interrupted Task and Discrete Emotions ...... 29 Quality of Social Interaction during Work Intrusions and Discrete Emotions ...... 32 Boundary Conditions for the Link between Interrupted Task Goal Progress and Emotions .. 35 Interrupted task urgency...... 35 Alternate task goal progress...... 37 Interpersonal affect...... 39 Boundary Conditions for the Relationship of Pleasantness of Social Interaction with Emotions ...... 41 Trait need to belong...... 41 Perceived interrupter guilt...... 43 Employee Response to Work Intrusion: Interpersonal Behaviors ...... 44 Surface acting and counterproductive work behavior...... 45

Interpersonal citizenship behavior...... 47 Employee Response to Work Intrusions: Employee Well-being and Performance ...... 48 Job satisfaction...... 48 Work effort and job performance...... 50 METHODS ...... 53 Procedure and Sample ...... 54 Daily (Within Individual) Measures ...... 56 One-time (Between Individual) Measure ...... 61 Control Variables ...... 61 Analytical Strategy ...... 62 Table 2 – Percentage of Within Individual Variance among Daily Variables...... 63 Figure 2 – A Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions ...... 65 Figure 3 – A Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions ...... 65 RESULTS ...... 66 Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Work Intrusions (Figure 2) ...... 66 Table 3 – Descriptive Statistics for the Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2) ...... 68 Table 4 – Results of Multi-level Path Model for the Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2) ...... 70 Table 5 – Indirect Effects for the Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2) ...... 71 Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Work Intrusions (Figure 3) ...... 71 Table 6 – Descriptive Statistics for the Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 3) ...... 72 Table 7 - Results of Multi-level Path Model for the Performance and Wellbeing Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 3) ...... 75 Table 8 – Indirect Effects for the Model for Performance and Well-being Outcomes (Figure 3) ...... 76 POST HOC ANALYSES ...... 77 Table 9 – Post Hoc Analysis for Model with Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2) ...... 79

DISCUSSION ...... 80 Summary of Findings ...... 81 Theoretical Implications ...... 82 Practical Implications ...... 93 Limitations and Future Research ...... 95 CONCLUSION ...... 99 RFERENCES ...... 100 APPENDICES ...... 131 Appendix A – Summary of Hypotheses ...... 131 Appendix B – List of Measures ...... 134 Appendix C – Comparison of Participants Recruited Directly versus via Snowball ...... 139 Appendix D – Comparison of Respondents versus Non-respondents to the Daily Surveys . 141

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Overarching Model of Daily Workplace Intrusions, Emotional Consequences, and Employee Outcomes …………………...……….……………………………….29

Figure 2 A Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions………………....65

Figure 3 A Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions...65

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Jett and George’s (2003) Typology of Work Interruptions……………………...17

Table 2 Percentage of Within Individual Variance among Daily Variables ……………..63

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)...…………………………….……………………………..68

Table 4 Results of Multi-level Path Model for the Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)……………………………………………………………..70

Table 5 Indirect Effects for the Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)………....………...…………………………………….…..71

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for the Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 3)……..……………………..…………………..72

Table 7 Results of Multi-level Path Model for the Performance and Wellbeing Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 3)…………………………………….…...….75

Table 8 Indirect Effects for the Model for Performance and Well-being Outcomes (Figure 3)………………………………..………………………………………….…….76

Table 9 Post Hoc Analysis for Model with Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)…………………….…………………...……………….….79

INTRODUCTION

Imagine that you are working on the slides for a class, but you are interrupted by people.

First, a colleague, who is also a co-author, barges in and announces, “Yay! We received a revise- and-resubmit!” Excited, you briefly discuss ways of addressing the reviewer comments before you return to work. A few minutes later you hear another knock on your door and on turning around you see that one of your students has come to discuss their class grade, even though you do not have office hours scheduled for that day. You stop your work to meet the student, but the discussion soon gets a bit heated as they are unwilling to accept your explanation for the grade.

Both these instances are examples of a work intrusion, defined as “an unexpected encounter initiated by another person that interrupts the flow and continuity of an individual's work and brings that work to a temporary halt” (Jett & George, 2003: 495). Employees are interrupted by different people for various reasons such as help and information requests, updates, and socializing (Mark, Gonzalez, & Harris, 2005; Perlow, 1999). Indeed, on average employees spend 2.1 hours per day addressing 22 external interruptions, with the lost time costing $588 billion dollars per year (González & Mark, 2004; Spira & Feintuch, 2005;

Wajcman & Rose, 2011). Thus, work intrusions have far-reaching implications.

How would you respond to the two work intrusions in the opening example? If you go by most of the prior research, you would view both these situations negatively due to the heavy emphasis on the negative consequences of being interrupted for the performance, attitudes, and well-being of employees (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Lin, Kain, & Fritz, 2013; Perlow, 1999).

However, some scholars have proposed that work intrusions can at times also result in positive outcomes such as informal feedback and job enrichment (Baethge, Rigotti, & Roe, 2015; Jett &

George, 2003). So, a question that arises is: when, why and for whom will a work intrusion be harmful or beneficial (Whetten, 1989)?

Since work intrusions, by definition, affect work tasks and involve unexpected social interactions (Jett & George, 2003), the way interrupted employees appraise task and social implications of work intrusions will influence their experience and response. However, as noted recently by Fletcher, Potter, and Telford (2018), past research has provided only a limited understanding of how and why the subjective experience of interrupted employees differs across intrusion episodes. On one hand, most experimental work that has dominated prior research has focused on the effect of objective characteristics of work intrusions such as the duration, timing, and similarity of tasks on outcomes such as task resumption and completion, largely ignoring the subjective experience of the interrupted participants (e.g., Cades, Davis, Trafton, & Monk, 2007;

Monk, Trafton, & Boehm-Davis, 2008). On other hand, while field studies do explore the subjective experience of workplace intrusions, most focus on the frequency rather than the content of specific intrusions, implicitly assuming all intrusions to be equal in content and impact

(e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013, 2015; Lin et al., 2013; Wilkes, Barber, & Rogers, 2018).

Thus, important questions related to the two key aspects of work intrusions—work tasks and social interaction—remain unanswered. For instance, with regard to the former, although work intrusions affect goal progress on both the interrupted and the interrupting task (Perlow,

1999), the simultaneous impact of both these tasks on the employee is rarely studied (e.g., Leroy

& Schmidt, 2016), nor has empirical research examined cases where intrusions benefit the interrupted task itself (Jett & George, 2003). With regard to the latter, work events such as work intrusions differ in terms of the relationship between the parties involved, as well as the quality of the social interaction, which can impact employees’ social goals and interpersonal responses

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Lilius, 2012). Yet, past research has almost entirely ignored these social factors in favor of a focus on the task-based drivers and outcomes of being interrupted.

Thus, we end up with an incomplete view of work intrusions that is skewed in the direction of

11 the interrupted task and negative performance-based responses of the interrupted employee. As a result, researchers have largely viewed intrusions as workplace stressors and advocated their elimination or, at the least, minimization (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Perlow,

1999). Such practical advice is of great value to employees and managers, given the wide prevalence of work intrusions (e.g., Wajcman & Rose, 2011). But the current practical advice may be based on an incomplete understanding of intrusions, given the state of the literature.

To address these concerns, I adopt a within-person, episodic model, which positions work intrusions as workplace events that can trigger either annoyance or happiness, which, I argue, differentiate the subjective experience and outcomes of one intrusion from another (Beal, Weiss,

Barros, & MacDermid, 2005; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). I integrate theory on self-regulation

(Carver & Scheier, 1990) with the appraisal theory of emotions (e.g., Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003;

Lazarus, 1991b) to explain why and how these two emotions occur during a work intrusion.

Specifically, I posit that since work intrusions are unexpected social interactions that affect work tasks, they will have self-regulatory implications via their impact on the goal progress of the interrupted employee’s work goals and the social goal of belongingness (e.g., Carver & Scheier,

2001, 2013; Leary & Guadagno, 2004). The way the interrupted employee appraises this self- regulatory impact will infuse meaning into their subjective assessment of the intrusion and lead to specific discrete emotions (Lazarus, 1991a)—appraisals of high goal progress on work and social goals indicate a desired state and will elicit happiness, while those of low goal progress indicate an undesirable state caused by another person and will lead to annoyance (e.g., Averill,

1983; Fisher, 2010; Gibson & Callister, 2010; Tjosvold & Su, 2007).

In terms of subsequent responses, emotions such as annoyance and happiness are the proximal influences on attitudes and affect-driven behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

Appraisal theory adds further specificity by theorizing about action tendencies of specific

12 emotions and how they make certain responses more likely for specific emotions (Frijda, 1986;

Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure, 1989). Building on this foundation, I focus on both attitudinal

(job satisfaction) and behavioral (surface acting, positive and negative interpersonal behaviors, work effort, and job performance) responses that can emerge from the action tendencies of annoyance and happiness in the context of a work intrusion (Averill, 1983; Frijda, 1986; Frijda et al., 1989). Importantly, given the tendency of emotions to linger in the minds of individuals beyond the triggering event (Beal et al., 2005), I focus not only on the immediate, event-level interpersonal responses, but also on the more distal end-of-day measures of these outcomes.

Lastly, regarding boundary conditions, because I suggest that an interrupted employee’s appraisals of a work intrusion determine their emotions, I focus on task and social factors that can influence these appraisals, thereby affecting the intensity of the emotion. With regard to work tasks, I draw on the research on work intrusions and self-regulation (e.g., Casciaro & Lobo,

2008; Conard & Marsh, 2016; Jett & George, 2003; Mitchell, Harman, Lee, & Lee, 2008), to examine how the urgency of the interrupted task and the goal progress on an alternate task during the intrusion influence the appraisal of the intrusion and the subsequent emotion. With regard to social factors, I draw on the research on self-regulation and emotions in social interactions (e.g.,

Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2013; van

Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2006), to examine how interrupted employees’ trait need to belong, the perception of guilt on the part of the interrupter, and the interpersonal relationship between the two shape the appraisal of the work intrusion. Overall, I take a detailed look at the emotional experience and outcomes of being interrupted in the workplace.

Contributions

Through my study I contribute to the literature on work intrusions, self-regulation, and emotions. First, I extend the focus of work intrusions research onto the hereto neglected social

13 aspects of intrusions. Despite findings that social interactions vary from positive to negative and affect employees differently (Dimotakis, Scott, & Koopman, 2011; Lilius, 2012), intrusion researchers have almost entirely overlooked this social aspect to focus only on intrusions’ task based drivers and implications (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Parke, Weinhardt,

Brodsky, Tangirala, & DeVoe, 2018). By showing that the quality of the social interaction during an intrusion significantly influences the emotions triggered by it, I highlight the prime role of such social interactions in driving the outcomes of day-to-day episodes of work intrusions.

Additionally, by demonstrating a positive link between social interaction during the work intrusion and end of day job satisfaction, I challenge the emerging consensus that work intrusions are usually harmful for employee’s job satisfaction (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013;

Pachler et al., 2018). These past studies have taken a frequency-based approach and focused on how the task-based effects of multiple work intrusions lead to lowered job satisfaction. By instead taking an episodic approach and focusing on the social interaction during the intrusion, I show that pleasant social interactions during specific intrusion episodes can positively influence end of day job satisfaction. This suggests that the social interaction between the interrupter and the interrupted employee is a key component of a work intrusion’s qualitative experience and should be accounted for in future work intrusions research. Further related to the social aspects, my findings also show that the interrupted-interrupter relationship tends to influence the emotions triggered during a work intrusion.

Second, the focus on discrete emotions as mediators of the response to being interrupted, extends prior research on intrusions in the workplace that has examined affect mainly as an outcome rather than as the mediator of such responses (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Bailey &

Konstan, 2006; Zohar, Tzischinski, & Epstein, 2003). Given that work intrusions are dynamic, goal relevant events, it is likely that they trigger discrete emotions that shape the response of the

14 employee (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). By integrating the theory on self-regulation (e.g., Carver

& Scheier, 1990) with the appraisal theory of emotion (e.g., Lazarus, 1991b), I explain how and why annoyance and happiness are triggered during a work intrusion, and their impact on subsequent employee outcomes. In doing so, my model shifts the focus of prior research from studying mainly cognitive mediators onto the emotional mediators of being interrupted.

Moreover, my theorizing here also adds to the self-regulation theory, which typically positions broad affective states as outcomes of events that affect employee’s goal progress without going into details about how the employee appraises the cause and the experience of the event (Carver

& Scheier, 1990; Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010). By invoking the appraisal theory, I explain how these appraisals on the part of the interrupted employee will shape the broad affective states proposed by self-regulation theory into the specific emotions of annoyance and happiness (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 2001). Such specificity about the discrete emotions evoked during an event is desirable because a focus on broad affective states hides the different impact of these discrete emotions (e.g., Gooty, Gavin, & Ashkanasy, 2009).

Third, my examination of interpersonal outcomes of work intrusions such as citizenship behavior and surface acting contributes to the literatures on work intrusions and emotion regulation. Work intrusion researchers have mainly examined outcomes related to the interrupted employee’s performance (e.g., Bailey & Konstan, 2006; Eyrolle & Cellier, 2000; Zijlstra, Roe,

Leonora, & Krediet, 1999), or wellbeing (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Parke et al., 2018; Wilkes et al., 2018). But, given that intrusions involve others, and employees also have social goals such as affiliation and belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), they are likely to be sites of interpersonal trade-offs and relationship management. I find support for this argument in my findings, as the emotions of happiness and annoyance elicited during a specific work intrusion influenced citizenship behavior and surface acting toward the interrupter.

The focus on surface acting during work intrusions also answers the call by emotion regulation scholars about advancing specific workplace events as antecedents of emotion regulation (Grandey & Melloy, 2017). By showing that employees may need to manage their annoyance during day-to-day work intrusions, I contribute to the emerging shift in the focus of the emotion regulation literature to contexts other than just customer interactions (Grandey &

Gabriel, 2015). This finding also has vital practical implications due to the growing prevalence of workplace intrusions (Wajcman & Rose, 2011). It implies that not only customer focused employees, but rather all employees may experience substantial amount of emotional labor and the need to regulate their emotions on a daily basis.

Lastly, considered together, my findings that intrusions in the workplace can at times lead to happiness, job satisfaction, and interpersonal citizenship behavior provide empirical evidence for the positive outcomes of work intrusions. While there have been theoretical arguments that work intrusions can have positive effects (e.g., Jett & George, 2003), empirical evidence for this possibility has been sparse. By demonstrating that the social interaction occurring during a work intrusion episode is a prime driver of such positive outcomes of work intrusions, I contribute to our understanding about the positive outcomes of work intrusions. Overall, I adopt a balanced approach that focuses on the social aspects of work intrusions, the role of discrete emotions, and on interpersonal outcomes and positive consequences of work intrusions. Below, I provide an overview of the past research on work intrusions that helps situate my model in this literature and highlight how I contribute to the current conversation in the literature.

WORK INTRUSIONS

Research on work interruptions spans multiple disciplines including psychology (e.g.,

Couffe & Michael, 2017), healthcare (e.g., McCurdie, Sanderson, & Aitken, 2017), human- computer interaction (e.g., Trafton & Monk, 2007), ergonomics (e.g., Healey, Sevdalis, &

Vincent, 2006), and management (e.g., Jett & George, 2003). Jett and George (2003) reviewed the prior literature on work interruptions and advanced a typology of interruptions based on their causes and mechanisms. Specifically, they classified work interruptions into four types: intrusions, breaks, distractions and discrepancies (see Table 1). Given its organizational foundation, this typology is suitable for anchoring research on workplace interruptions and has been adopted by prior organizational scholars (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2013; Wilkes et al., 2018). Scholars tend to focus on different types of interruptions separately due to their differing triggers, mechanisms and outcomes (e.g., Dabbish, Mark, & González, 2011; Lin et al.,

2013; Trougakos, Hideg, Cheng, & Beal, 2014).

Table 1 – Jett and George’s (2003) Typology of Workplace Interruptions

Type of Interruption Definition An unexpected encounter initiated by another person that interrupts the flow and Intrusion continuity of an individual's work and brings that work to a temporary halt.

Distractions are psychological reactions triggered by external stimuli or Distraction secondary activities that interrupt focused concentration on a primary task. Breaks are planned or spontaneous recesses from work on a task that interrupt the Break task's flow and continuity. Discrepancies are perceived inconsistencies between one's knowledge and Discrepancy expectations and one's immediate observations that are perceived to be relevant to both the task at hand and personal well-being.

Work intrusions are defined as unexpected interruptions initiated by others that bring the employee’s current task to a temporary halt (Jett & George, 2003). Mitchell et al. (2008: 214) noted that intrusions, “are what most people would refer to as an interruption” and over the years, researchers have documented the widespread occurrence of workplace intrusions (e.g.,

Biron, Lavoie‐Tremblay, & Loiselle, 2009a; Perlow & Weeks, 2002). In an early observation study, O'Conaill and Frohlich (1995) noted that about ten minutes of every hour were spent on work intrusions, most of them unplanned, face-to-face interactions. Almost a decade later,

González and Mark (2004) noted similar findings in a study of information workers. Mark and

17 colleagues (2005) differentiated between external and internal interruptions and noted that managers faced more external interruptions like intrusions (see also: Hudson, Christensen,

Kellogg, & Erickson, 2002). They further found that about 77% of the interrupted tasks were resumed on the same day and that employees interrupted each other more when collocated (see also Chong & Siino, 2006). Relatedly, Harr and Kaptelinin (2007) noted that collaboration and communication patterns can also influence intrusion occurrence.

More recent studies also confirm the growing prevalence of work intrusions. Claessens,

Van Eerde, Rutte, and Roe (2010) found that R&D engineers spent almost 20% of their work day dealing with work intrusions and ended up completing more unplanned than planned work.

Sykes (2011) noted intrusions by colleagues as the most common interruptions faced by software employees. In the healthcare sector, intrusions by doctors, nurses, patients, and assistants have been documented (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013, 2015). Similarly, Wajcman and Rose (2011) found that the workdays of knowledge workers are made of a large number of work episodes (on average 88 per day), most of which (about 90%) lasted for ten minutes or less, lending support to the claim by other researchers about the fragmented nature of today’s work (Czerwinski,

Horvitz, & Wilhite, 2004; Mark et al., 2005; Perlow, 1999). In sum, work intrusions are widespread events that affect daily work life of employees across occupations and hence are an important focus of organizational research.

The Experience and Outcomes of Work Intrusions

A large amount of prior research has focused on unpacking the experience and outcomes of work intrusions. Majority of this work has focused on the cognitive, attentional and memory related implications of being interrupted on the performance of the interrupted task (Couffe &

Michael, 2017). Interrupted individuals need to transition their attention to the interrupting task by suppressing the goals of the previous task and activating the goals of the new task (Altmann

& Trafton, 2002). The switching of attention from the initial to the interrupting task and back can take a cognitive toll on interrupted individuals and their performance (e.g., Baron, 1986; Gupta,

Li, & Sharda, 2013; Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1999; Speier, Vessey, & Valacich, 2003).

Moreover, time sharing between these tasks often leads to time-pressure and subjective workload that negatively affect employee wellbeing (Mark, Gudith, & Klocke, 2008; Perlow, 1999).

Experimental work has shown that the cognitive implications of work intrusions resulted in increased time of completion of the interrupted task, more errors, and forgetting of intentions

(e.g., Bailey & Konstan, 2006; Brumby, Cox, Back, & Gould, 2013; Cellier & Eyrolle, 1992;

Dodhia & Dismukes, 2009; Eyrolle & Cellier, 2000; Gupta et al., 2013), but this impact could be buffered if intrusions occurred near subtask boundaries tasks rather than during a task, since cognitive workload is less at these points (Bailey & Iqbal, 2008; Bailey & Konstan, 2006).

With respect to the workplace, studies have shown that work intrusions lead to fragmented work-days (Mark et al., 2005) with negative effects for employee performance across different occupations. For example, most research in healthcare has found work intrusions to result in higher workload, forgetting of intentions, medical delays and errors, poor quality of patient care, lower satisfaction, and irritation (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013, 2015; Biron,

Loiselle, & Lavoie‐Tremblay, 2009b; Weigl, Müller, Vincent, Angerer, & Sevdalis, 2012), causing scholars to advocate a reduction of work intrusions (Biron et al., 2009a; McCurdie et al.,

2017; Weigl et al., 2012). Cognitive load due to intrusions has been found to be disruptive for software engineers and knowledge workers as well (Perlow, 1999). Others have shown that across occupations work intrusions can also have self-regulatory implications that lead to emotional exhaustion, fatigue, physical distress, low job engagement, and low job satisfaction

(Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018; Parke et al., 2018). Overall, past research has focused on

19 unpacking how the interruption on of an ongoing task affects interrupted employees’ performance on that task and their wellbeing, often in a negative manner.

Opportunities to Expand the Current Work Intrusions Research

Despite substantial progress in our understanding of work intrusions, there are still some areas in which this literature can be expanded further. Below, I elaborate on these areas and explain how my theoretical model seeks to contribute to each of these areas.

Social and relational dynamics and interpersonal outcomes of daily work intrusions.

While work intrusions involve social interaction and are embedded in the relational dynamics of the workplace, these factors are rarely considered due to several reasons. First, lab studies cannot recreate the complex social and relational dynamics of a workplace, nor do these studies vary the social interaction quality between participants and the interrupting confederate (Conard &

Marsh, 2016; Zijlstra et al., 1999). Second, in field studies, the social interaction during an interruption is often not considered, or is impossible to capture due to a frequency-based approach that focuses on the frequency rather than content of intrusions (Baethge & Rigotti,

2013; Wilkes et al., 2018). Third, most intrusions research focuses on performance and well- being outcomes, while ignoring interpersonal outcomes (e.g., Lin et al., 2013; Parke et al., 2018).

As a result, it is unclear how these social factors related to a work intrusion affect the interrupted employee. Because social interactions can influence employee experiences

(Dimotakis et al., 2011), it is important to examine whether the quality of the social interaction during a work intrusion plays a role in shaping the interrupted employee’s experience. And if it does, then what its implications are for the response of the interrupted employee. Additionally, since work intrusions are interpersonal events that occur in the context of an ongoing relationship between the interrupter and the interrupted employee, it is also crucial to understand what influence this relationship has on the way the intrusion is experienced. For instance, are

20 intrusions from individuals that the employee shares a strong relational bond with experienced differently than those from people with whom the employee has a less strong bond? Lastly, a natural extension of this focus on the social aspects of a work intrusion is the examination of whether intrusions influence the interrupted employee’s interpersonal behaviors. Given my focus on the emotional experience of the interrupted employee, I ask how does the experience of annoyance or happiness on being interrupted affect the employees’ interpersonal behaviors toward the interrupter as well as others in general?

Role of discrete emotions. As mentioned above, most of prior research on intrusions has taken a cognitive approach to studying the implications of being interrupted on an ongoing task.

As such scholars have unraveled how the cognitive and attentional demands of being interrupted affect employee attitudes and performance (Altmann & Trafton, 2002; Speier et al., 1999; Speier et al., 2003). While this stream of research does acknowledge that work intrusions can trigger affective responses (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Bailey & Konstan, 2006; Hudson et al., 2002;

Sonnentag, Reinecke, Mata, & Vorderer, 2018; Zijlstra et al., 1999), the potential mediating effects of these affective responses have been largely unexplored. However, as emotion scholars have shown, the subjective experience of different emotions and their associated action tendencies can influence employee attitudes and behaviors (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996). Hence, it is not just enough to acknowledge that work intrusions are affective events, but it is also important to understand the consequences of the emotional experiences triggered by them. To address this concern, I explore two key questions in this study: a) what emotions are triggered during a work intrusion? and b) how do these emotions shape the experience and outcomes of being interrupted?

One reason why prior research may not have not addressed these questions in detail could be that emotions are highly transient phenomena tied to specific eliciting stimuli (Frijda, 1986).

Thus, to study the specific emotion and its effects, it is important to isolate the event that causes it. A frequency-based approach prevents such isolation of a single work intrusion and instead we get an aggregation of affective responses to work intrusions accumulated over a workday (e.g.,

Sonnentag et al., 2018). An episodic approach instead enables me to isolate individual intrusion episodes and study the discrete emotions elicited by them (Beal et al., 2005). Additionally, a focus on the employee’s subjective appraisals of the work intrusions helps me study how the appraisal of the different elements of the intrusion are linked to the emotion elicited by it

(Lazarus, 1991a). In sum, I advance past research is by focusing on the specific emotions triggered during a work intrusion and how they drive the employee’s response.

Lack of focus on the interrupting/alternate tasks. One limitation of prior research on work intrusions is that most of it has focused on the task and/or individual being interrupted, and has largely ignored the task and/or individual doing the interrupting. In fact, Conard and Marsh

(2016: 16) have noted that, “interrupting tasks are not treated as variables of interest, and performance on interrupting tasks is not a point of focus.” As a result, current research is skewed in favor of examining only how halting of the initial task affects the interrupted employee.

However, employees often pursue multiple goals simultaneously (e.g., Neal, Ballard, &

Vancouver, 2017), and can be interrupted by other work tasks (e.g., Perlow, 1999). Indeed, it is possible that while progress on the interrupted task halts, progress on an alternate goal is facilitated by intrusions (Hunter et al., in press). As such, what happens to other tasks during the work intrusion should also have implications for the interrupted employee’s experience. Hence, in this study, I adopt a multi-goal perspective (Unsworth, Yeo, & Beck, 2014) and ask the question: how does the impact on the interrupted task’s goal progress affect the employee in light of the simultaneous impact on other tasks during the intrusion? This helps me present a more nuanced and realistic view of the experience of the work intrusion.

Positive outcomes of work intrusions. Despite theoretical models hinting at positive outcomes of work intrusions (Baethge et al., 2015; Jett & George, 2003), systematic empirical research on positive consequences of intrusions is sparse. However, this seems to be changing with a growing trend of recent studies that focus on the possible positive outcomes of work intrusions such as positive affect, mindful processing, and creativity (Addas & Pinsonneault,

2018; Lu, Akinola, & Mason, 2017; Sonnentag et al., 2018). I situate my study within this emerging research stream and explore several positive outcomes of work intrusions aligned with my interest in the emotional experience of being interrupted such as happiness, job satisfaction and citizenship behaviors. Specifically, I am interested in understanding when and why work intrusions lead to these positive outcomes.

Before I embark on my hypotheses development, it is important to note that researchers study a specific subset of work intrusions to isolate their features and impact on employees (e.g., work-family intrusions: Hunter et al., in press; email intrusions: Russell, Woods, & Banks, 2017; face-to-face intrusions: Szóstek & Markopoulos, 2006). Here, I focus on work intrusions that involve contemporaneous interpersonal engagement with the interrupter such as face to face intrusions, which, unlike online and email intrusions afford the interrupted employee less flexibility about when and how to engage with the interrupter (Nees & Fortna, 2015). It is important to focus on these work intrusions for several reasons. First, multiple studies have noted these as the most frequently observed intrusions in the workplace (e.g., Berg et al., 2013;

González & Mark, 2004; Mark, 2015; Sykes, 2011; Wajcman & Rose, 2011)—thus, they form an important aspect of daily work-life. Second, such work intrusions are characterized by an inherent asymmetry, in that, they occur at the convenience of and in service of the agenda of the interrupter but not necessarily the interrupted person (e.g., Gupta et al., 2013; Käser,

Fischbacher, & König, 2013; Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000). Thus, they can be especially

23 taxing for the interrupted employee (Lin et al., 2013). Finally, due to the involvement of and the direct interaction with the interrupter, these work intrusions also have the potential to affect the interrupted employee’s social goals (Carton & Aiello, 2009; Harr & Kaptelinin, 2007, 2012). As a result, handling these work intrusions can be a delicate matter for employees. In the next section, I elaborate more on the theories I draw on to develop my episodic model that brings out the complexity of the experience and outcomes of these work intrusions.

THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES

Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggested that workplace events can trigger specific discrete emotions, which, in turn, influence employee attitudes and behaviors. Empirical work has supported this assertion and shown that emotional responses to work events are related to job satisfaction (Dimotakis et al., 2011), engagement (Bledow, Schmitt, Frese, & Kühnel, 2011), organizational commitment (Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004), workplace deviance (Judge, Scott, &

Ilies, 2006), citizenship, counter-productive and problem solving behaviors (Barclay & Kiefer, in press; Rodell & Judge, 2009), and turnover intentions (Conroy, Becker, & Menges, 2017b).

Here, I suggest that a work intrusion is a specific type of a workplace event that affects interrupted employees’ task-related and social goals and results in cognitive appraisals and intertwined emotional reactions that shape their attitude and behavioral response (Frijda, 1993;

Jett & George, 2003). To explain the emotional experience and outcomes of a work intrusion, I ground my theorizing in the theory on self-regulation as it provides a framework for explaining how people manage their goal directed behaviors and the affective states resulting from events that impact these behaviors (Carver & Scheier, 1990). I then integrate self-regulation theory with the appraisal theory of emotion (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991b), as it helps explain the specific form of emotion that these affective states will assume and the outcomes resulting from these emotions. Below, I provide a brief overview of these two theories.

Self-regulation Theory

Self-regulation theory explains individual motivation and behavior as resulting from the establishment of and striving toward goals, defined as mental representations of desired end states (e.g., Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 2001). Individuals evaluate the extent to which they are making or have made progress toward goal accomplishment by comparing their current state with their goal, and if a discrepancy exists, then it leads to affective and behavioral responses (Johnson, Chang, & Lord, 2006; Lord et al., 2010).

Specifically with regard to affect, Carver and Scheier (1990) theorized that affective reactions result from how an event is seen to affect goal progress, with low goal progress eliciting negative affect and high goal progress leading to positive affect. Scholars have shown the validity of this assertion in the context of daily work goals, where events that resulted in high progress on daily work goals triggered positive affect, while those that did not lead to work goal progress caused negative affect (Scott, Colquitt, Paddock, & Judge, 2010; Wanberg, Zhu, & Van

Hooft, 2010). Apart from daily work goals, scholars have also shown how self-regulation during daily social interactions also has affective consequences (Leary & Guadagno, 2004). Leary and colleagues (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 2012; Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs,

1995) have developed a stream of research that establishes belongingness as a fundamental social goal of human beings, which people self-regulate toward during social interactions.

Discrepancies detected with regard to this goal during social interactions trigger a corresponding affective reaction, with negative interactions that indicate rejection and disapproval, and thwart one’s need to belong leading to negative affect, and positive interactions that indicate acceptance and approval eliciting positive affect (Dimotakis et al., 2011; Leary & Baumeister, 2000). In this sense, the pleasantness of the social interaction becomes an index of the belongingness detected during that interaction (Leary, 2012).

Applying the above research on self-regulation to a work intrusion, I suggest that because intrusions involve social interactions and affect daily work tasks (Jett & George, 2003), they will have self-regulatory implications for the interrupted employees’ daily work goals and the social goal of belongingness (Mitchell et al., 2008). However, while the above described self-regulation research links events affecting progress on daily work goals and the social goal of belonginess to affective reactions (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Leary, 2012; Scott et al., 2010), it is relatively silent about individuals’ appraisals of other factors related to these events (Beck, Scholer, & Hughes,

2017). Often it is the appraisals about the cause and impact of an event that determine the discrete emotion triggered by the event. For instance, while a reduction in goal progress may cause negative affect as stated by self-regulation theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990), whether one blames the self (leading to guilt) or the other (leading to annoyance) can differentiate the discrete emotion experienced (Lazarus, 1991a). Specificity about the emotion triggered by an event is crucial because each emotion influences subsequent behaviors differently (Gooty et al., 2009).

Hence, I integrate self-regulation theory with the appraisal theory of emotion to theorize about how, why and which specific emotions will result from a work intrusion.

Appraisal Theory of Emotion

Appraisal theory of emotion focuses on the process and content of people’s emotions, depending on how they subjectively appraise an event and its implications (Roseman & Smith,

2001). Emotions are complex “affective responses to what happens in the environment and cognitive representation of the event’s meaning for the individual” (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994:

51). While scholars have proposed different variants of the appraisal processes that trigger an emotion (e.g., Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991b; Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987; Smith & Ellsworth,

1985), they all share several underlying assumptions. First, appraisals, defined as processes related to picking up, sensing, and interpreting features, aspects and components of an event, are

26 the causal elicitors of emotions (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994; Lazarus, 1991a). Second, appraisals are of two types—primary and secondary—and specific combinations of these appraisals elicit corresponding discrete emotions (e.g., Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Frijda & Mesquita, 1994;

Lazarus, 1991b, 2001; Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). Third, each emotion is associated with an action tendency that influences behavior (Frijda et al., 1989; Frijda & Mesquita, 1994; Roseman,

Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). For instance, fear has an action tendency to flee or avoid a threat, guilt is associated with making amends, and happiness is associated with approaching and associating with others positively (Frijda, 1986).

The primary appraisal is a fast, automatic and broad evaluation of the favorability or unfavourability of the event for one’s relevant goals, which results in positive or negative affect respectively (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994; Lazarus, 1991a, b). However, the primary appraisal does not contain sufficient information to shape this affect into a discrete emotion (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996). In this sense, the affective states resulting from a primary appraisal are similar to the affective states resulting from the perception of a goal progress discrepancy as posited by the self-regulation theory. The secondary appraisal, is a more detailed assessment of the event that shapes the broad affective states resulting from the primary appraisal into a discrete emotion. As part of the secondary appraisal, people evaluate the agency (who is responsible) for an event, their coping potential and future expectations for the event (Lazarus,

1991a). However, a combination of the primary appraisal and the agency criteria of the secondary appraisal is sufficient to differentiate among the most common emotions such as annoyance, guilt/shame, anxiety, happiness and pride (Lazarus, 2001).

For instance, when the primary appraisal indicates an event hinders one’s relevant goals, it leads to negative affect. This negative affect takes the form of annoyance when the event is blamed on an external entity, otherwise it leads to guilt/shame when the event is blamed on the

27 self (Averill, 1983; Lazarus, 1991a; Tracy & Robins, 2006). In contrast, if the primary appraisal indicates that the event facilitates one’s relevant goals, then it leads to happiness (Weiss,

Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999). Moreover, if this event is also attributed to the self, then happiness is accompanied by pride (Lazarus, 1991a). Overall, while prior research on self- regulation helps me theorize about the type of goals affected by daily work intrusions—daily work goals and belongingness—and the resulting affective states, the appraisal theory of emotion helps narrow down on the specific emotion that will emerge from these affective states and its impact on outcomes. Building on this background, I now develop my hypotheses.

Figure 1 shows an overarching model of the variables and relationships that I examine in my study. As a brief overview of my theorizing in the subsequent sections, I draw on the self- regulation theory to propose that work intrusions will affect employee’s goal progress on their daily work goals and their social goal of belongingness, resulting in a goal discrepancy and a corresponding affective reaction. Drawing on the appraisal theory of emotions, I then suggest that this broad affective state will be shaped into either annoyance or happiness based on how the employee appraises the cause and the impact of the intrusion. I explore individual (trait need to belong), situational (interrupted task urgency, alternate task goal progress, and perceived interrupter guilt), and relational (interpersonal affect) factors that moderate these relationships.

Finally, I theorize that these emotions will differentially influence intrapersonal (job satisfaction), interpersonal (surface acting, citizenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior), and performance related (job performance and work effort) outcomes both at the immediate episode level and at the end of the day level. A summary of all the hypotheses is presented in Appendix A at the end of the manuscript.

Figure 1 – Overarching Model of Daily Workplace Intrusions, Emotional Consequences, and

Employee Outcomes

Impact on the Interrupted Task and Discrete Emotions

Prior research on self-regulation during work intrusions suggests that it is possible that intrusions hamper an employee’s goal striving on the interrupted task (Mitchell et al., 2008).

Spending time on a work intrusion can stop the engagement with the ongoing task, resulting in halting of the goal progress on that task (Jett & George, 2003). Even if the employee wants to delay an intrusion, they still have to, at least momentarily, disengage from the ongoing task, shift focus and address the interrupter, which can halt progress on the interrupted task (Beal et al.,

2005; Beck et al., 2017). Moreover, the unexpected nature of work intrusions can derail planned effort for a given day, leading to the perception of insufficient goal progress on daily planned work goals (Parke et al., 2018). Thus, work intrusions have the potential to negatively affect goal

29 progress on the interrupted task and lead to the perception of an aversive discrepancy between the employee’s daily plan and actual actions (Lord et al., 2010). This discrepancy is threatening as it implies the employee may not achieve their goals for the day in a timely manner, leading to a negative affective experience (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Ilies & Judge, 2005). This process aligns with the way primary appraisal is conceptualized by appraisal theorists—a broad appraisal of the favorability of an event for one’s goals resulting in an affective reaction (Ellsworth &

Scherer, 2003; Zohar et al., 2003). However, as explained before, it is the secondary appraisal that determines the discrete emotion elicited. In this case, I propose that the secondary appraisal will lead to the emotion of annoyance.

Appraisal theorists agree that annoyance results from secondary appraisals in which a goal blocking event, with low control of the focal individual, is blamed on an external entity

(e.g., Averill, 1983; Berkowitz, 1990; Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995; Tjosvold & Su, 2007).

Typically, annoyance is an aversive emotion whose intensity depends on the extent to which the event blamed on another person is threatening to the focal individual’s goal achievement (Frijda et al., 1989). In terms of when people hold others responsible for an event, prior attribution research suggests that it is more likely in situations where others’ behaviors are salient (Jones &

Nisbett, 1972; Taylor & Fiske, 1975), and outcomes are unfavorable (Ross, 1977). In case of work intrusions, not only are the behaviors of the interrupter highly salient, since they initiate the unexpected episode and draw the employee’s attention (Jett & George, 2003), but their actions are also likely to be especially striking when they impact the employee’s goal progress adversely

(Baethge & Rigotti, 2013). So, when assigning the responsibility for the negative impact of an intrusion on the interrupted task, the interrupter will seem a natural and credible target to blame.

Thus, the employee will be annoyed at the interrupter when their ongoing task is adversely

30 affected by the intrusion (Averill, 1983; Tjosvold & Su, 2007), implying that annoyance has a negative relationship with goal progress on the interrupted task. Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Within individuals, a lack of goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to high level of annoyance, which implies a negative relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance

Since work intrusions unexpectedly halt an ongoing task, it would be intuitive to assume that they always hinder goal progress on the interrupted task. In fact, most past research has taken this stance (e.g., Lin et al., 2013; Perlow, 1999; Wilkes et al., 2018). For instance, in a study on work intrusions faced by nurses, Baethge and Rigotti (2013: 45) stated, “we do not expect positive consequences of workflow interruptions on the performance of nurses.”

However, Jett and George (2003) have noted that intrusions can at times benefit the interrupted task via feedback and information. This possibility is evident in some of the scale items used in prior research (e.g., “I was interrupted by people who provided me work-related updates or information,” Parke et al., 2018). Relatedly, Chong and Siino (2006) noted in their qualitative study that employees are often interrupted by others to provide information and for coordination.

However, research has not yet examined whether such work intrusions actually benefit the goal progress on the interrupted task during the intrusion. It is certainly possible. For instance, imagine that the employee in the opening example is informed by the interrupting colleague that they already have the slides for that topic and would be happy to share them. In such a case, the employee may not have to prepare the slides from scratch and can borrow the slide template of their colleague. Thus, work intrusions that help the interrupted task will lead to positive discrepancies with regard to its goal progress, signaling a desirable state and resulting in positive affect (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Zohar et al., 2003). This process essentially amounts to the primary appraisal in this case (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).

Researchers have noted that secondary appraisals are less influential in shaping discrete positive emotions than they are in shaping negative emotions (e.g., Weiss et al., 1999). This implies that unlike with annoyance, the attribution of an event’s responsibility is less crucial in eliciting happiness (Lazarus, 1991a). This is the reason why the experience and action tendencies of positive emotions are less differentiated than those of negative emotions (Elfenbein, 2007).

Here, I propose that an appraisal of goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to happiness on the part of the interrupted employee. Indeed, Frijda (1986: 267) has positioned, “reasonable progress toward the realization of our goals” as the key elicitor of happiness (see also Lazarus,

1991a; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), which is characterized by a sense of control and subjective well-being (Fisher, 2010). Since work intrusions are unplanned events, interrupted employees may often receive information or help that benefits the interrupted task unexpectedly (Jett &

George, 2003). This unanticipated boost to the goal progress of the interrupted task can lead to perceptions of control due to the gain of resources such as time and information and can come as a “pleasant surprise” that facilitates the experience of happiness (Fisher, 2010; Mitchell et al.,

2008: 215). Overall, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Within individuals, the perceived goal progress of an interrupted task is positively related to happiness such that high goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to higher level of happiness

Quality of Social Interaction during Work Intrusions and Discrete Emotions

Apart from task-based implications, work intrusions also involve social interactions (Jett

& George, 2003). Hence, along with work goals, interrupted employees will also be sensitive to the impact of an intrusion on their social goals (Mitchell et al., 2008). Research on self- regulation in interpersonal contexts suggests that the need to belong is a fundamental human goal that is activated during social interactions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary et al., 1995;

Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014a). People strive to self-regulate towards positive interpersonal

32 relationships to achieve the goal of belongingness (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary &

Guadagno, 2004; Stinson et al., 2010). The way that people appraise the extent to which this goal of belongingness is met is by monitoring the pleasantness of their social interactions (Leary,

2012; Stinson et al., 2010). Thus, the assessment of the pleasantness of an interaction becomes an index of one’s momentary level of belongingness and also represents the way the primary appraisal occurs during social interactions (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Leary et al., 1995).

Pleasant and positive interactions are appraised as indicating high belongingness and trigger positive affect, while unpleasant and negative interactions are seen to indicate disapproval and rejection, and trigger negative affect (Leary, 2012; Stinson, Cameron, & Huang, 2015).

Further fine-tuning of these affective states into specific emotions occurs via the secondary appraisal (Lazarus, 1991a). I propose that work intrusions characterized by negative social interactions will lead to annoyance. Prior research has shown that negative workplace interactions comprising of uncivil and unpleasant behaviors are stressful and threaten employees’ state self-esteem (Bono, Glomb, Shen, Kim, & Koch, 2013; Dimotakis et al., 2011; Leary et al.,

1995; Lilius, 2012). Such interactions are aversive as they threaten cordial work relationships and violate typical expectations for interpersonal treatment (Rupp & Spencer, 2006; Stinson et al., 2010; Vittengl & Holt, 1998). Intrusions already occur at unexpected moments, in addition, if interrupters also propagate unpleasant interactions, then their actions will stand out in the minds of the employees (Jones & Nisbett, 1972; Taylor & Fiske, 1975). Indeed, prior research shows that negative interactions are more salient and linger in the minds of the targets longer than pleasant or neutral interactions (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Miner,

Glomb, & Hulin, 2005). As such, the interrupter and their actions will be seen as plausible candidates to blame for the unpleasant experience of the work intrusion (Ross, 1977), leading to

33 the emotion of annoyance directed at the interrupter. In other words, annoyance will be negatively related to the pleasantness of the social interaction. Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Within individuals, unpleasant social interactions during work intrusions will lead to higher level of annoyance, which implies a negative relationship between the pleasantness of a work intrusion’s social interaction and annoyance

In contrast, I propose that when work intrusions are characterized by positive social interaction, they will lead to happiness. Positive interactions, or what Stephens, Heaphy, and

Dutton (2011) term as high-quality connections, include expressions of support, gratitude, compliments and humor (Bono et al., 2013; Dimotakis et al., 2011; Koopmann, Lanaj, Bono, &

Campana, 2016; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). These affiliative interactions fulfill the basic need of belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bono et al.,

2013) and conform to the expectations of interpersonal treatment (Kiffin-Petersen, Murphy, &

Soutar, 2012; Rupp & Spencer, 2006). Such interactions make the employee feel valued and tend to boost their state self-esteem (Stinson et al., 2010, 2015). Indeed, fun and enjoyable work interactions have been shown to foster positive emotions (Vittengl & Holt, 1998). In fact, even minimal level of positive interactions with others tend to satisfy the goal of belongingness

(Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014a, b), build psychological resources (Bono et al., 2013) and signal a desirable state, leading to the emotion of happiness. Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4: Within individuals, the perceived pleasantness of a work intrusion’s social interaction is positively related to happiness such that pleasant social interaction is associated with higher level of happiness

Overall, I explore how the subjective appraisals about the task and social implications of a particular work intrusion shape the discrete emotion emerging from it (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus,

1991a). Prior research suggests that the relationship between appraisals of an event and the subsequent emotion is contingent on individual and contextual factors related to the event (Weiss

& Cropanzano, 1996). Given that work intrusions involve work tasks and interaction between

34 individuals, I explore factors related to the work tasks (urgency of interrupted task, and goal progress on an alternate task), and the individuals involved in a work intrusion (trait need to belong of the interrupted employee, perceived interrupter guilt, and the interpersonal affect between the two) as boundary conditions for the above relationships.

Boundary Conditions for the Link between Interrupted Task Goal Progress and Emotions

Since the appraisal of goal progress of the interrupted task leads to subsequent emotion, factors that affect employees’ sensitivity to this appraisal will moderate this relationship. I draw from research on work intrusions and self-regulation (e.g., Conard & Marsh, 2016; Jett &

George, 2003; Mitchell et al., 2008) to position interrupted task urgency and alternate task goal progress as two such moderating factors. Further, based on appraisal theory’s emphasis on relationships as the broader context within which others’ actions are appraised (Lazarus, 2001), I also examine the effect of interpersonal affect between the employee and the interrupter.

Interrupted task urgency. While the appraisal of goal progress of the interrupted task is the key driver of the interrupted employee’s emotions (Carver & Scheier, 1990, 2013; Lazarus,

1991a), the significance of this appraisal, and, by extension, the intensity of emotion will vary across tasks (Elicker et al., 2010; Johnson, Howe, & Chang, 2012). In other words, the attributes of the interrupted task set the background in which the goal progress on that task is appraised.

Appraisal theory suggests that one task characteristic relevant to people’s emotional reactions to goal progress on that task is its urgency (e.g., Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). Task urgency is defined as the subjective assessment of the time available to work on the task (e.g., Minbashian,

Wood, & Beckmann, 2010). A focus on task urgency is consistent with prior self-regulation research that has shown that people’s response to goal progress on a task is sensitive to the availability of time to work on the task (Mitchell et al., 2008; Schmidt & DeShon, 2007;

Schmidt, Dolis, & Tolli, 2009). Drawing on this research, I suggest that the urgency of the interrupted task will shape the emotional response to its perceived goal progress.

Task urgency represents the need to engage in the task as soon as possible (Claessens et al., 2010) and reflects the amount of time pressure associated with it (Ashford & Northcraft,

2003; Teuchmann, Totterdell, & Parker, 1999). Thus, the deadlines of urgent tasks are temporally closer than those of less urgent tasks due to which the negative (positive) outcomes of not completing (completing) these tasks may be cognitively more prominent to the employee

(Claessens et al., 2010; Minbashian et al., 2010). Thus, in case of urgent tasks, time becomes a precious commodity, and an appraisal of lowered goal progress that implies a delay of task completion will be more threatening and will evoke greater annoyance and less happiness when the task is more urgent. In contrast, an appraisal of increased goal progress on urgent tasks, implying facilitation of these time-sensitive tasks, will seem more beneficial and lead to greater happiness and lower annoyance (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Frijda, 1986; Jett & George, 2003).

Prior work on schedule changes supports this assertion by suggesting that the amount of time left to complete a task influences the way an individual appraises a delay (i.e. low goal progress) or a hastening (i.e. high goal progress) of that task (e.g., Blount & Janicik, 2001).

Applying this concept of task urgency to the opening example, the extent to which the impact on the goal progress of preparation of the class slides (i.e. the interrupted task) will emotionally affect the interrupted employee will depend on whether the employee is preparing the slides for a class that they have to teach the next day or the next hour. The emotional impact of the change in goal progress (either increase or decrease) is likely to be more intense in the latter case than in the former one. Overall, work intrusions that impede goal progress on an urgent task will lead to more annoyance and less happiness, and intrusions that facilitate goal progress on the urgent task will lead to less annoyance and more happiness. Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5: Within individuals, interrupted task urgency will moderate:

a) the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance such that low interrupted task goal progress will lead to greater annoyance when interrupted task urgency is high than when it is low.

b) the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and happiness such that high interrupted task goal progress will lead to greater happiness when interrupted task urgency is high than when it is low.

Alternate task goal progress. Employees pursue multiple goals and work on multiple tasks (Ashford & Northcraft, 2003; Unsworth et al., 2014), and so, apart from affecting the ongoing work task, a work intrusion can also make salient goal discrepancies related to alternate tasks (Mitchell et al., 2008; Rosen et al., 2018). Perlow (1999) found that engineers were frequently interrupted by their colleagues for other tasks, and Wajcman and Rose (2011) have noted how the constant connectivity in today’s workplaces facilitates work-related intrusions.

Since both the interrupted and the alternate task together occupy the work intrusion episode, both will have self-regulatory implications for the interrupted employee (Schmidt & DeShon, 2007;

Schmidt et al., 2009). So, the appraisal of goal progress of the alternate task will also influence the interrupted employee’s emotional experience (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). Because work intrusions are unexpected (Brixey et al., 2007), the time and resources devoted to the alternate task during the intrusion can result in unanticipated goal progress on it (e.g., Jett & George,

2003). I suggest that such goal progress on alternate tasks during the work intrusion will tend to attenuate the negative effects of low goal progress on the interrupted task and enhance the positive effects of high goal progress on the interrupted task.

When alternate task progress occurs in the context of low goal progress on the interrupted task, it will lead to a perception that the time and resources devoted to the work intrusion were not entirely wasted but, in fact, helped the other task (Jett & George, 2003). In such cases, the employee may take a more benign view of the intrusion and the interrupter that reduces the

37 negative impact of perceiving low goal progress on the interrupted task. In support of this,

Sonnentag et al. (2018) showed that responding to email interruptions led to the perception of being responsive and positive affect, and Hunter et al. (in press) showed that family intrusions that helped family goals led to positive affect, despite hindering progress on the interrupted task.

Alternately, a work intrusion can lead to high goal progress on both the tasks. In such instances, appraisal theory predicts that events appraised as fostering multiple goals will have an enhanced impact on the well-being and positive emotions elicited by these events (Ellsworth &

Scherer, 2003). In such situations, the employee will become aware of simultaneous progress on multiple goals (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Unsworth et al., 2014), which will tend to enhance positive effects of high goal progress on the interrupted task.

If a work intrusion leads to low goal progress on both the tasks, it can lead to a perception that the time and resources invested on the alternate task during the intrusion were completely wasted (Jett & George, 2003). The appraisal of low goal progress on multiple goals will highlight goal discrepancies and threaten goal achievement on multiple fronts (Unsworth et al.,

2014), leading to an aversive experience that enhances the negative impact of low goal progress on the interrupted task (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Neal et al., 2017; Zohar et al., 2003).

Lastly, if low goal progress on the alternate task occurs in instances where the goal progress on the interrupted task is enhanced by the work intrusion, then it will attenuate the positive effects of high goal progress on the interrupted task. The reason is that while the interrupted task is seen to be positively affected by the work intrusion, the simultaneous low goal progress on the alternate task may threaten the achievement of the employee’s other goals

(Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Neal et al., 2017; Schmidt & DeShon, 2007). As a result, the employee may take a less benign view of the positive impact on the interrupted task’s progress.

Taken together, this suggests that as the goal progress on alternate tasks during a work intrusion increases, it will reduce the negative impact of low interrupted task goal progress and enhance the positive effect of high interrupted task goal progress. Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 6a: Within individuals, alternate task goal progress will moderate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance such that low interrupted task goal progress will lead to greater annoyance when alternate task goal progress is low than when it is high.

Hypothesis 6b: Within individuals, alternate task goal progress will moderate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and happiness such that high goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to greater happiness when alternate task goal progress is high than when it is low.

Interpersonal affect. As explained earlier, the two key appraisals that result in annoyance at being interrupted are a) negative impact on goal progress, and b) blaming of the interrupter for this negative impact (Gibson & Callister, 2010; Lazarus, 2001; Roseman & Smith,

2001). While the above two moderators mainly addressed the former, factors that influence the latter will also shape the extent to which the employee gets annoyed at the interrupter. Work intrusions are embedded in the ongoing relationships between the employee and the interrupter

(Gupta et al., 2013). Since interpersonal relationships tend to influence blame appraisals

(Lazarus, 2001), I posit that the employee-interrupter relationship will be a key moderator of the experience of being annoyed at the interrupter.

Interpersonal workplace relationships vary along several dimensions including closeness, interdependence, and type of social exchange (Flynn, 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Jehn &

Shah, 1997; Seers, 1989). Due to my focus on emotions, I have chosen the concept of interpersonal affect that helps establish the baseline level of the emotional bond between the employee and the interrupter as the relational context for the intrusion (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008;

Tsui & Barry, 1986). Interpersonal affect is reflected in the liking, admiration and respect between two individuals, and is shaped by prior interactions (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, &

Rosenthal, 1964; Tsui & Gutek, 1984). Research shows that it influences the way employees appraise others’ actions and self-regulate their interpersonal responses (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008).

The impact of interpersonal affect on appraisals of others’ actions has been widely studied in the area of performance management, where raters tend to rate other people in a manner consistent with the interpersonal affect between them (Robbins & DeNisi, 1994; Tsui &

Barry, 1986; Varma, Denisi, & Peters, 1996; Varma & Pichler, 2007). Robbins and DeNisi

(1994) suggest that people prefer consistency between their overall affective feelings toward a person and the way they appraise the actions of that person. Thus, in case of high interpersonal affect, people tend to discard negative, inconsistent behavior as an aberration or weigh it less significantly when appraising a person’s actions. The reverse holds true for when interpersonal affect is low. In such cases, people discount positive actions and instead focus on negative behaviors that confirm their negative view of the person and attribute the event to the person rather than external causes. In support of this, Tsui and Gutek (1984) found that high interpersonal affect resulted in more positive appraisals of others’ actions than warranted, and low interpersonal affect resulted in more negative appraisals than warranted. In an interpersonal context, Casciaro and Lobo (2008) have shown that interpersonal affect influences the way people appraise others’ actions and decide whether to self-regulate toward them for help or not. I am proposing the flip side of this in that interpersonal affect will influence whether the employee prefers being approached and interrupted by a particular individual or not.

Taken together, in cases where an intrusion negatively affects the interrupted task, employees will be more likely to blame interrupters toward whom they have low interpersonal affect (Tsui & Barry, 1986), than those interrupters toward whom they have high interpersonal affect, choosing to blame situational factors instead. Negative valuations of an event decrease when the event is seen to be caused by situational factors than by another person (Blount &

Janicik, 2001). Further, since ‘blame’ is an integral component that determines annoyance toward the interrupter (Averill, 1983; Lazarus, 1991a), interpersonal affect will thus influence the intensity of annoyance experienced in response to low goal progress on the interrupted task by influencing the level of blame placed on the interrupter.

While interpersonal affect can theoretically influence the appraisal of responsibility in cases where work intrusions foster interrupted task goal progress, responsibility appraisals are less influential in shaping the experience of happiness as they are not a necessary condition for its occurrence (Weiss et al., 1999). So, I hypothesize that interpersonal affect will mainly influence the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance:

Hypothesis 7: Within individuals, interpersonal affect will moderate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance such that low goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to greater annoyance when employees have low as opposed to high level of interpersonal affect toward the interrupter

Boundary Conditions for the Relationship of Pleasantness of Social Interaction with Emotions

Since the appraisal of the pleasantness of the social interaction with the interrupter determines the subsequent emotion, I examine factors that can make employees more or less sensitive to this appraisal as the moderators of this relationship. Drawing further on the theory of self-regulation during social interactions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Stinson et al., 2010), I position trait need to belong as an individual-level moderator of this relationship. Further, since a work intrusion is an event where the workflow of the interrupted individual is unexpectedly halted and possibly disturbed (Jett & George, 2003), I draw on the emotions literature (e.g., van

Kleef, 2016) to examine perceived guilt of the interrupter as an interaction-level factor that moderates this relationship. Below, I explain these moderators in greater detail.

Trait need to belong. As argued above, during a work intrusion self-regulation in the direction of belongingness occurs based on an appraisal of the pleasantness of the social

41 interaction (Leary et al., 1995). However, self-regulation toward a goal is affected by the perceived importance of that goal (Elicker et al., 2010), and while the goal of belonginess is universally experienced, “people differ in the strength of their desire for acceptance and belonging” (Leary et al., 2013: 610). This implies that people are differentially sensitive to the pleasantness of their social interactions and this sensitivity is indexed by their trait need to belong. Prior research has shown that people high in trait need to belong are a) more attuned to and accurate in detecting verbal and non-verbal cues of pleasantness of social interaction

(Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004), and b) experience more intense positive (negative) emotions on encountering pleasant (unpleasant) interactions (Leary et al., 2013; Rego & Souto,

2009). For instance, high trait need to belong individuals reported more hurt feelings, distress and negative affect on experiencing unpleasant and negative interactions (Leary & Kelly, 2009;

Mellor, Stokes, Firth, Hayashi, & Cummins, 2008; Reichl, Schneider, & Spinath, 2013).

Similarly, in the context of the workplace, Rego and Souto (2009) showed that trait need to belong moderated the impact of camaraderie and happiness, with people high in trait need to belong reporting more happiness in response to social interactions that reflected camaraderie

(Rego & Souto, 2009). Drawing on this research, I posit that since people high in trait need to belong are more sensitive and accurate in appraising the pleasantness of social interactions, they will experience more intense emotional reactions, annoyance or happiness, in response to the interaction with the interrupter than those low in this trait (Leary et al., 2013).

Hypothesis 8: Trait need to belong will moderate:

a) the within-individual relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and annoyance such that unpleasant interactions will lead to greater annoyance for employees with a high as opposed to a low level of trait need to belong

b) the within-individual relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and happiness such that pleasant interactions will lead to greater happiness for employees with a high as opposed to a low level of trait need to belong

Perceived interrupter guilt. Prior research has shown that a work intrusion typically affects the interrupted employee’s flow of work activities and can thus be viewed as disturbing or inconveniencing them (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Jett & George, 2003). Social and interactional norms typically dictate that in such situations the interrupters should apologize for causing discomfort to the employee (e.g., Frijda & Mesquita, 1994). One way that this can be conveyed is by expressing guilt for interrupting the employee. Guilt is an emotion that is experienced in response to specific actions that are seen to negatively affect others (Bohns &

Flynn, 2013). While guilt can be aversive for the actor, the social functional view of emotions suggests that it can be adaptive for interpersonal interactions by helping the target of the guilt understand the actor’s beliefs and intentions (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; van Kleef, 2016), especially in situations where the actor supposedly disturbs or inconveniences the target (e.g., Tangney,

Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007; Tracy & Robins, 2006).

Guilt conveys to the affected individual (the interrupted employee) that the transgressor

(interrupter) is aware and apologetic about their actions’ possible negative consequences

(Baumeister et al., 1994). Thus, it indicates a reluctance on the part of the interrupter to disturb the employee. As a result, the interrupted employee will be less likely to hold the interrupter responsible for the work intrusion, and instead may take a more benign view of their actions, resulting in lower level of annoyance (Baumeister et al., 1994). Moreover, guilt expressions also signal that the interrupter is being considerate about the interrupted employee’s work and time, leading to perceptions of being valued (Leary, 2012; Leary & Guadagno, 2004). Thus, in case of low pleasantness of social interaction, perceived guilt on the part of the interrupting employee will soften the negative impact of such interactions, while in case of pleasant interactions, it will enhance the positive impact of such interactions. Overall, perceived guilt of the interrupter will

43 attenuate annoyance and enhance the happiness experienced in response to the social interaction during a work intrusion (Lazarus, 1991a).

On the flip side, when guilt expressions are lacking, the employee may take this to mean that the interrupter is either not aware or does not care that they are disturbing the employee through the intrusion (Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Such situations imply that the interrupter does not value the employee or their time (Leary, 2012; Leary & Guadagno, 2004) and can be perceived as a personal attack on the time and autonomy of the employee (Perlow, 1999). In such cases, the employee can view the interrupter and their interaction with the interrupter more negatively, and end up blaming the interrupter for the work intrusion (Lazarus, 1991a). Thus, lower levels of perceived guilt on the part of the interrupter can exacerbate annoyance and attenuate happiness experienced during a work intrusion (Baumeister et al., 1994). Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 9: Within individuals, perceived interrupter guilt will moderate:

b) the relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and happiness such that pleasant interactions will lead to greater happiness when perceived interrupter guilt is high than when it is low

Employee Response to Work Intrusion: Interpersonal Behaviors

As I have posited, given the presence of, and the interaction with the interrupter, it is likely that the emotions arising from being interrupted influence employees’ interpersonal behaviors. By examining the interrupted employee’s interpersonal response during and subsequent to the work intrusion, I focus on their behavior not only toward the interrupter but also toward others in general. To theorize about the type of behaviors that will result from each of the emotion, I draw further from the theory on self-regulation and emotions (Diefendorff &

Gosserand, 2003; Fisher, 2010; Frijda, 1986, 1987; Lazarus, 1991b) to study surface acting and

44 citizenship behavior toward the interrupter during the intrusion, and counterproductive work behavior and citizenship behavior subsequent to the work intrusion.

Surface acting and counterproductive work behavior. Emotions have specific action tendencies that can manifest in the form of subsequent behaviors (Frijda, 1986; Frijda et al.,

1989; Roseman et al., 1994). Annoyance is characterized by an aversive experience, leading to action tendencies aimed at removing or getting rid of the trigger of the emotion, which in this case is the interrupter (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009; Frijda, 1987; Glomb, 2002).There is evidence that such action tendencies can manifest in the form of uncivil behaviors that are seen to help relieve the aversive feeling of annoyance (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Kabat-

Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013).

However, as theory on self-regulation of emotions indicates these expressions of one’s annoyance may be incompatible with the implicit workplace norms about the ‘appropriate’ and

‘expected’ emotional expressions during workplace interactions (Diefendorff & Gosserand,

2003). Indeed, most organizations discourage negative emotional expressions and encourage positive emotional displays (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015). More importantly, Diefendorff, Richard, and Croyle (2006) have shown that most employees are aware of these implicit rules, compare their felt emotions with these expectations, and on detecting a discrepancy regulate their emotional expressions to align with these expected emotional displays.

Employees regulate their emotional expressions by either suppressing their felt emotions and associated action tendencies and faking the required emotional expressions (i.e. surface acting), or by trying to experience the mandated emotions from within (i.e. deep acting)

(Grandey, 2003; Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Hochschild, 1983). Grandey (2000) has theorized that surface acting is a response-focused strategy that occurs after an emotion is experienced and needs to be regulated. In contrast, deep acting is positioned as an antecedent oriented strategy

45 where employees try to regulate an emotion before an event. In terms of the types of events leading to these two emotion regulation strategies, Diefendorff and Gosserand (2003: 24) noted that, “when a discrepancy is unexpected (e.g., an affective event creates a strong emotional reaction that is different from the display rule), individuals may only be able to surface act.” The reason is that because unexpected events or the emotions they will trigger cannot be predicted in advance, people will have to regulate their emotions after experiencing them, making the response focused strategy of surface acting more likely in case of unexpected events (Grandey,

Tam, & Brauburger, 2002; Kammeyer‐Mueller et al., 2013).

Drawing on the above research, I argue that since work intrusions are, by definition, unexpected events, surface acting is a more likely response in case of intrusions (Diefendorff &

Gosserand, 2003). The presence of the interrupter is another reason why surface acting is more likely because the employee’s expressions will be directly visible to the interrupter and may need to be suppressed if discrepant from organizationally mandated expressions. Moreover, since most organizations discourage negative emotional expressions, I theorize that surface acting is more likely when the employee experiences annoyance on being interrupted (Diefendorff &

Richard, 2003; Diefendorff et al., 2006; Kammeyer‐Mueller et al., 2013). Thus, the employee will tend to engage in surface acting during the work intrusion on experiencing annoyance.

Moving beyond the intrusion episode, negative emotions tend to persist well beyond the eliciting episode (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011; Yue, Wang, & Groth, 2017). Moreover, although employees may regulate their emotional expressions during the work intrusion via surface acting, the negative emotion itself tends to persist internally and may even increase

(Scott & Barnes, 2011), enhancing the employee’s negative, aversive experience. As a result, annoyance experienced during a work intrusion may lead to negative action tendencies beyond the intrusion episode (Elfenbein, 2007). Moreover, after the end of the direct interaction with the

46 interrupter during the work intrusion, the employee may get opportunities to relieve the negative action tendencies of annoyance in the form of counterproductive work behaviors, often in situations where they may not have to surface act (e.g., venting out to another coworker, avoiding others, trying to harm them indirectly) (Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch, & Hulin, 2009; Lee

& Allen, 2002). As such, I hypothesize that subsequent to the work intrusion, the negative action tendencies of annoyance may manifest in the form of counterproductive work behavior.

Hypothesis 10: Within individuals, annoyance will be positively related to a) episode level surface acting, and b) end of the day reports of counterproductive work behavior

Hypothesis 11: Within individuals, annoyance will mediate the negative indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and a) episode level surface acting and b) end of the day report of counterproductive work behaviors

Hypothesis 12: Within individuals, annoyance will mediate the negative indirect relationship between pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and a) episode level surface acting and b) end of the day report of counterproductive work behaviors

Interpersonal citizenship behavior. In contrast to the above, I suggest that work intrusions that trigger happiness will be associated with higher levels of citizenship behaviors, comprising of discretionary positive acts that typically benefit others (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Positive emotions such as happiness imply progress on important goals and are experienced as states of exuberance and pleasure that signal well-being (Frijda,

1986, 1987; Lazarus, 1991a). Happiness broadens one’s thought-action repertoire (Fredrickson,

1998; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), essentially shoring up psychological resources (Lilius, 2012). Moreover, unlike in the case of annoyance, the employee will hold a more benign and positive view of the interrupter, instead of an unfavorable one.

Researchers have linked happiness with ‘other-oriented’ action tendencies such as being more outgoing, associating positively with others and sharing one’s happiness (Elfenbein, 2007; Frijda et al., 1989). As a result, happiness will lead to greater interpersonal availability, with the

47 employee demonstrating more involvement, interpersonal sensitivity, and concern during the intrusion (Rothbard, 2001). Further, as positive emotions build psychological resources their positive effects can spill over beyond the immediate context and affect behaviors in subsequent episodes (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Hence, I also examine the relationship between happiness and end of day reports of citizenship behavior. Overall, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 13: Within individuals, happiness will be positively related to a) episodic citizenship behaviors and b) end of the day reports of citizenship behaviors

Hypothesis 14: Within individuals, happiness will mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and a) episodic citizenship behaviors and b) end of the day reports of citizenship behaviors

Hypothesis 15: Within individuals, happiness will mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and a) episodic citizenship behaviors and b) end of the day reports of citizenship behaviors

Employee Response to Work Intrusions: Employee Well-being and Performance

Apart from interpersonal behaviors, emotions experienced during the work intrusion can also affect employee’s job attitude such as job satisfaction, as well as their job-related behaviors and performance (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Drawing further on the research on emotion and self-regulation of behavior (Fisher, 2000; Frijda et al., 1989; Ilies & Judge, 2005), I examine the impact of the emotions experienced during work intrusions on job satisfaction, work effort and job performance of the interrupted employees.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is an evaluative state that captures the assessment of one’s job and its facets (Ilies & Judge, 2004; Weiss, 2002) and has been widely examined as an indicator of employee well-being affected by daily workplace intrusions (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti,

2013; Grebner et al., 2003). A combination of viewing workplace intrusions as stressors, ignoring the social interaction during work intrusions, and using a frequency-based approach has

48 resulted in an emerging consensus that the frequency of daily work intrusions is negatively related to job satisfaction (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Grebner et al., 2003; Pachler et al., 2018).

However, Baethge et al. (2015) have recently argued that the qualitative experience and outcomes of specific work intrusion episodes may not be isomorphic with those of the frequency of multiple work intrusions. Since job satisfaction fluctuates over the period of a day, it is possible that different episodes of work intrusions influence it differently based on their emotional content (Fisher, 2000). My episodic model on intrusions’ emotional experience enables me to study this influence. With regard to workplace emotions and job satisfaction,

Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000) found a positive correlation between positive affect and job satisfaction, and a negative correlation between negative affect and job satisfaction. Further, positive and negative interactions were found to indirectly impact employee’s job satisfaction via the mechanism of daily affect (e.g., Dimotakis et al., 2011). Building on this prior research and drawing on the appraisal theory of emotion, I examine how the specific subjective experience of annoyance and happiness experienced during work intrusions affects job satisfaction.

Annoyance is experienced as a negative and aversive state that signals the presence of a problem in one’s immediate environment (Averill, 1983; Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004;

Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995). In case of work intrusions, as explained, annoyance can result from either an awareness of a hindrance to one’s goal progress on work tasks (Baethge &

Rigotti, 2013; Berkowitz, 1990), or due to a negative and unpleasant social interaction with the interrupter (Tjosvold & Su, 2007). In both these cases, annoyance directs the attention of the interrupted employee to the source of the potential threat to their goals—the interrupter (Frijda,

1987; Lazarus, 1991a). Moreover, the negative emotional experience of annoyance itself can act as a source of information about the unfavorability of one’s context (Schwarz & Clore, 2003). As such, employees’ evaluation of their job context and the interrupter will be negative when they

49 are annoyed on being interrupted, resulting in low job satisfaction (Domagalski & Steelman,

2005). Hence, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 16: Within individuals, annoyance will

a) be negatively related to end of the day job satisfaction,

b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and end of the day job satisfaction

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and end of the day job satisfaction

In contrast to this, happiness will be triggered when work intrusions are seen to lead to unexpected progress on work tasks or in case of a pleasant social interaction with the interrupter

(Fisher, 2010; Kiffin-Petersen et al., 2012). Both these conditions signal progress towards one’s goals and indicate a desirable state to be in (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Leary, 2012). As such, happiness should enhance perceptions of well-being and control (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991a,

2001) and lead to favorable evaluation of one’s context (Schwarz & Clore, 2003). Thus, the employee’s evaluation of their job context and the interrupter will be more benign and positive leading to high job satisfaction (Dimotakis et al., 2011).

Hypothesis 17: Within individuals, happiness will

a) be positively related to end of the day job satisfaction,

b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and end of the day job satisfaction, and

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and end of the day job satisfaction

Work effort and job performance. Work effort represents “the degree to which individuals work hard by exhibiting behaviors to achieve their goal” (Beck et al., 2017: 1111;

Neal et al., 2017). It represents the intensity and persistence with which employees self-regulate their actions toward work goals (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Job performance is the extent to which employees succeed in achieving their work goals within a particular time span (Beal et al., 2005;

Beck et al., 2017). Typically an employee’s daily schedule comprises of a series of sequential performance episodes during which they exert effort in the direction of their work goals (Beal et al., 2005). Prior research on emotions and self-regulation has shown that people’s emotions can influence their work effort and their performance (Beck et al., 2017; Seo & Ilies, 2009). Further, given that the emotions triggered by an episode can persist beyond the focal episode (Greenhaus

& Powell, 2006; Scott & Barnes, 2011), it is likely that the emotions triggered during the focal intrusion episode affect the employee not only during the intrusion but also spill over and impact self-regulation of effort and performance on subsequent tasks as well (Beal et al., 2005; Ilies &

Judge, 2005; Parke et al., 2018). Hence, I examine here the impact of a work intrusion on effort and performance measured at the end of the day via the intervening mechanisms of annoyance and happiness. Drawing on the appraisal theory of emotions (Frijda et al., 1989), I hypothesize that these two emotions will influence daily work effort and performance differently.

Negative emotions such as annoyance focus attention on the circumstances of the emotion, lead to narrower information processing, and thus affect people more strongly (e.g.,

Elfenbein, 2007; Miner et al., 2005). Research has shown that negative emotion disrupt cognitive processing by reducing recall of information, and narrowing one’s thought action repertoire

(Ellis, Moore, Varner, Ottaway, & Becker, 1997; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). In the case of a work intrusion, since the employee’s annoyance is directed at the interrupter, it is likely that they will be preoccupied with the supposedly errant actions of the interrupter, often even after the intrusion episode (Beal et al., 2005; Elfenbein, 2007; Frijda, 1986, 1987). Such distraction can, in turn, affect their level of focus and effort on their work tasks and also negatively impact performance (Beal et al., 2005; Miner & Glomb, 2010). Thus, annoyance will be negatively related with the employee’s work effort and performance as reported at the end of the work day.

In contrast, I suggest that happiness will lead to higher level of work effort and job performance (Ilies & Judge, 2005; Seo & Ilies, 2009). The action tendencies of positive emotions such as happiness are less specific and less directed at the immediate circumstances (Elfenbein,

2007). These emotions broaden thought-action repertoires, replenish psychological resources and facilitate an approach orientation that leads to a wider array of behaviors (Beal et al., 2005; Bono et al., 2013; Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Lilius, 2012). Given these constructive outcomes and increased availability of resources, positive emotions from a focal episode will have a positive spill-over effect on self-regulation of effort in subsequent performance episodes (Lilius, 2012).

Also, happiness triggered by goal progress on the interrupted task, may indicate that the task is progressing as desired and that the employee can shift resources to other tasks more in need of their attention (Carver & Scheier, 1990), in turn boosting the performance on those tasks.

Prior empirical research has supported these assertions. For instance, Seo and Ilies (2009) showed that while positive affect from an initial performance episode benefited effort and performance in the subsequent episode, negative emotions resulting from an earlier performance episode, instead, harmed subsequent performance. Ilies and Judge (2005) showed that positive emotions from initial performance increased motivation on subsequent work tasks, while negative emotions decreased motivation. Similarly, Beck et al. (2017) showed that the negative emotional reactions on being disrupted in an ongoing task translated into lower goal commitment, effort, and performance on subsequent work tasks. In contrast, Miner and Glomb

(2010) found a positive within-individual relationship between positive mood and task performance. Building on the above theory and empirical findings, I suggest that in case of a work intrusion, annoyance (happiness) from being interrupted by another person will negatively

(positively) impact subsequent work effort and performance of the interrupted employee.

Hypothesis 18: Within individuals, annoyance will

a) be negatively related to work effort

b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and work effort, and

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and work effort

Hypothesis 19: Within individuals, happiness will

a) be positively related to work effort

b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and work effort, and

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and work effort

Hypothesis 20: Within individuals, annoyance will

a) be negatively related to job performance

b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and job performance, and

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and job performance

Hypothesis 21: Within individuals, happiness will

a) be positively related to job performance

b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and job performance, and

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and job performance

METHODS

To empirically test my model, I used an experience sampling approach (ESM), defined as

“a representative sampling of immediate experiences in one’s natural environment” that helps in studying dynamic, fluctuating individual states that vary over very short time-lines (Beal, 2015:

384). This approach was suitable for my study since the focal constructs of work intrusions and discrete emotions are dynamic, time bound, and transient occurrences that vary throughout the

53 day (Beal et al., 2005; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). By asking employees to answer multiple daily surveys I captured these transient phenomena as they occurred in the work context (Beal,

2015) and reduced retrospection bias (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen,

& Zapf, 2010). Moreover, ESM has been employed by previous researchers studying work intrusions (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Baethge et al., 2015; Parke et al., 2018), and discrete emotions (e.g., Barclay & Kiefer, in press; Conroy, Henle, Shore, & Stelman, 2017a).

Procedure and Sample

The data for this study were obtained from the employees at a large Midwestern university and local organizations, who were invited via email to participate in the study for a chance to win up to $30 Starbucks gift-cards (e.g., Parke et al., 2018). The recruitment email described the study and contained an opt-in survey for individuals who met the eligibility criteria

(i.e., full time employees with access to email throughout the day). Those who chose to participate were redirected to an online survey that contained an informed consent document, questions on demographic information and measures of the between person variables (listed in

Appendix B). Participants were asked either to forward the recruitment email to other potential participants or provide contact information of these potential participants, whom I then contacted separately and invited for participation in the study. Such snowball technique for recruitment has been employed by prior experience sampling studies (e.g., Koopman, Lanaj, & Scott, 2016). A total of 120 participants signed up for the study, of which 65 (54%) were recruited directly by me and 55 (46%) were recruited via the snowball technique. A comparison of participants recruited by these methods did not reveal any significant differences on key variables (see Appendix C).

The daily portion of the study began one week after this initial survey and comprised of two daily surveys (one at lunch time and one at the end of the work-day) emailed to the employees for three weeks (i.e. 15 consecutive work days). This study duration was sufficient to

54 capture a wide range of employee experiences, given that researchers have recommended a period of two weeks as adequate for this purpose (Reis & Wheeler, 1991). Moreover, a review of prior research reveals that scholars have adopted similar or smaller timelines to study work intrusions (e.g., 5 days: Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; 5 days: Baethge & Rigotti, 2015; 10 days:

Parke et al., 2018), and emotions (e.g., 10 days: Barclay & Kiefer, in press; 10 days: Rodell &

Judge, 2009; 5 days: Sonnentag et al., 2018). Daily surveys contained scales for the within- individual variables described below (also see Appendix B).

In the first daily survey (Time 1), sent just before lunch time, I asked employees to recall the most recent instance when they were unexpectedly interrupted by another person and answer the questions based on that event. In line with recent episodic research on work intrusions, I focused on the most recent intrusion “to prevent recall bias toward the most disruptive, important, or unpleasant interruption” (e.g., Leroy & Glomb, 2018: 5). This also ensured sufficient variance in the type of work intrusions the employees focused on. To increase the fidelity of the answers, employees were first asked to briefly describe the recalled event. This was followed by the surveys for Time 1 variables including the predictors, moderators, and mediators and the two event level outcomes of surface acting and event level citizenship behavior shown in Figure 1. On average, Time 1 survey was completed at11.30 am. Time 2 survey was administered at the end of the workday and contained the scales for end of the day outcomes of job satisfaction, work effort, job performance, citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors and control variables that employees answered based on their experience since the previous survey. On average, Time 2 survey was completed at 4.30 pm.

Overall, of the 120 employees who enrolled in the initial survey, three participants did not complete any survey in the daily portion of the study. The remaining 117 participants provided 824-day level data points, with an average of 7 days per person, which is line with

55 recommendations by multilevel scholars (Gabriel et al., 2018; González-Romá & Hernández,

2017) and also as per the trend in recent ESM studies (e.g., Lee, Bradburn, Johnson, Lin, &

Chang, 2019; Rosen et al., 2018). I compared the participants who enrolled in the study but did not participate in the daily surveys with the participants who did participate in the daily portion of the study (see Appendix D). There were no significant differences on key variables.

Due to my interest in studying work intrusions that involved interpersonal interaction in the workplace, employees were asked not to answer the survey if they had not encountered any work intrusion by another person by the time the first survey was answered, or if they were working from home. Further, I also excluded intrusions that employees described as being caused by emails, rather than by direct interaction with the interrupter. The final sample comprised of 117 employees (78% female) who occupied a variety of jobs in the administrative, clerical, technical, and service positions in their organizations. The average age of participants was 27 years, average job tenure was 4.6 years, and organizational tenure was 6 years.

Participants worked on average for 8.4 hours daily and 41.6 hours weekly. Of these117 participants, 93 participants were Caucasian, 4 were African American, 2 were Hispanic/Latino,

12 were Asian, 1 was Native American, and 5 did not indicate their ethnicity.

Daily (Within Individual) Measures

Unless mentioned, all the scales used the rating scheme of 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A summary of all measures is presented in Appendix B.

Interrupted task goal progress. I used the six item scale developed by Wanberg et al.

(2010) to measure employee’s perception of how goal progress on their interrupted task was affected during the intrusion. In the Time 1 survey, employees were asked to think back to the work intrusion and rate the items based on their appraisal of how it affected goal progress on the

56 task that was interrupted. Sample items included, “I moved forward with the task,” and, “I hardly made any progress on the task” (reverse scored). The average reliability of was 0.90.

Pleasantness of social interaction. I used the items developed by Brondolo et al. (2003) to measure pleasantness of social interaction. While these authors used two separate scales for pleasantness and unpleasantness, I combined them into a single scale by reverse-scoring the unpleasantness items. In the Time 1 survey, employees rated the following words to describe the quality of their social interaction with the interrupter: “pleasant,” “friendly,” and “agreeable” and

“uncomfortable,” “tense,” and “confrontational.” The last three items were reverse scored. The average reliability for this scale was 0.92.

Annoyance. Annoyance is part of the anger family of emotions and is often used interchangeably with other similar expressions such as irritation, and anger (Lazarus, 2001). I measured annoyance in the Time 1 survey with the scale used by Schwarzmüller, Brosi, and

Welpe (2017) and asked participants to rate the following words based on how they felt during the work intrusion: annoyed, irritated, and angry. The average reliability of the scale was 0.88.

Happiness. I captured happiness in the Time 1 survey using items that have been used by prior emotion researchers (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O'connor, 1987; Weiss et al., 1999).

Participants were asked to rate the following words based on how they felt during the work intrusion: happy, joyful, enthusiastic, and eager. The average reliability for this scale was 0.91.

Interrupted task urgency. I used the 3-item scale of task urgency developed by

Maruping, Venkatesh, Thatcher, and Patel (2015) in the Time 1 survey to measure the urgency of the task that was interrupted. The wordings of the items were adjusted to focus on the interrupted task. Participants were asked to think back to the task that was interrupted and answer the questions based on how urgent it was when it was interrupted. Sample items are, “I was under a

57 lot of pressure to complete that task on time,” and, “I did not have much time to complete that task.” The average reliability for this scale was 0.91.

Alternate task goal progress. Similar to the measurement of goal progress on the interrupted task, I included the 6-item scale of Wanberg et al. (2010) in the Time 1 survey to ask participants to think back to the work intrusion and rate the extent to which they made progress on alternate tasks during the work intrusion. The wordings were adjusted to reflect alternate tasks. Sample items include, “I made good progress on other tasks,” and, “I hardly made any progress on other tasks.” The average reliability of this scale was 0.93.

Interpersonal affect. To capture the interpersonal affect between the interrupter and the interrupted empoyee, I used 4 items from the scale of interpersonal affective regard developed by

Wayne and colleagues (Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995). During the Time 1 survey, employees rated the items of the scale based on their typical affective relationship with the interrupter. Sample items included, “I like him/her,” and, “I get along well with him/her” The average reliability for this scale was 0.9.

Perceived interrupter guilt. While there is a large literature focused on the guilty person, there is relatively less research on detecting guilt in others. Most of this stream is primarily seen in experimental settings (e.g., van Kleef et al., 2006). I adopted the single item that Wubben, De Cremer, and Van Dijk (2009) used in their study to check the extent to which their participants detected guilt in others. Single item measurements are common in the emotions literature as they allow the researcher to adequately capture the subjective assessment of an emotion (e.g., Conroy et al., 2017b; Kim & Glomb, 2014).

Gabriel et al. (2018: 13) have noted that single items to capture narrow concepts such as emotions in ESM studies “may not only be easier for participants to understand but can also better reflect the intended content domain.” Due to the possibility of contamination with related

58 emotions, these authors specifically point to the emotion of guilt and recommend that, “it may be better to present a single item to respondents.” Accordingly, I used an item that clearly stated the reason for the other person’s guilt in the Time 1 survey: “To what extent do you believe the interaction partner felt guilty about interrupting you in the middle of your work task?”

Surface acting. I adapted the scale developed by Grandey (2003) to measure surface acting with 4-items focused on the employee’s experience during the work intrusion in the Time

1 survey. Participants were asked to recall their interaction with the interrupter and rate the extent to which they engaged in surface acting during the intrusion. Sample items were, “I put on a ‘mask’ to display the emotions needed for the interaction,” and, “I pretended to have emotions that I needed to display during the interaction.” The average reliability was 0.96.

Additionally, though I did not hypothesize a relationship between annoyance and deep acting, in keeping with prior research on surface acting (e.g., Uy, Lin, & Ilies, 2017), I measured and modeled deep acting as a parallel outcome of surface acting. I measured deep acting with 3 items from the scale by Grandey (2003). Sample item was, “I worked hard to feel the emotions that I needed to show during the interaction.” Average reliability was 0.92.

Citizenship behavior. I used items from the interpersonal citizenship behavior scales provided by Dalal et al. (2009). Citizenship behaviors were measured at both Time 1 and Time 2 to capture the episodic and end of day levels of these behaviors targeted at the interrupter and others in general. For the Time 1 survey, since I was interested in the citizenship behaviors directed specifically at the interrupter, I used a 4-item scale adapted from Dalal et al’s (2009) citizenship behavior scale from their study 1. The items were adapted to focus specifically on the interrupter. Participants were asked to recall their experience of the intrusion and rate the items based on their behavior toward the interrupter. Sample items included, “I tried to be considerate to him/her,” and, “I was respectful of his/her needs.” The average reliability was 0.79.

The scale administered at Time 2 was the six-item scale from study 2 in Dalal et al.

(2009) that has been used by prior within-individual studies on citizenship behavior (e.g.,

Koopman et al., 2016). The items for this scale were generic in the target they focused on and employees were asked to rate them based on their experience since the previous survey. Sample item for this scale is, “I tried to help one or more coworkers.” The average reliability was 0.80.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB). I used the 6-item interpersonal CWB items scale developed by Dalal et al. (2009) to capture the counterproductive behaviors subsequent to the work intrusion. At Time 2, employees were asked to think back to their experiences since the previous survey and rate the items of the scale. Sample items included, “ I behaved in an unpleasant manner toward one or more coworkers,” and, “I spoke poorly about one or more coworkers to others.” The average reliability for this scale was 0.73.

Job Satisfaction. I used the modified version of the job satisfaction scale by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) that has been used by prior research (e.g., Judge et al., 2006; Koopman et al.,

2016) to assess the momentary experience of job satisfaction. Participants were be asked to rate the items based on how they felt at that moment. The scale was administered at Time 2 to capture the end of the day level of job satisfaction. Sample items included, “I feel enthusiastic about my work,’ ‘I feel fairly satisfied with my present job.’ The average reliability was 0.90.

Work effort. I administered the scale developed by Brown and Leigh (1996) at Time 2 to measure the employee’s level of work effort since the work intrusion. Participants rated the items based on their experience since the previous survey. Sample items included, “I strived as hard as

I could to be successful in my work,” and, “I really exerted myself to the fullest.” The average reliability for this scale was 0.93.

Job performance. I used the 4-item job performance scale used by Parke et al. (2018) to measure job performance at Time 2. Participants rated the items based on their experience since

60 the previous survey. Sample items included, “I fulfilled all the responsibilities specified in my job description today,” and, “I adequately completed all of my assigned duties today.” The average reliability for this scale was 0.91.

One-time (Between Individual) Measure

The below individual-level scale was administered during the initial sign-up survey about one week before the daily portion of the study:

Trait need to belong. The 10 item need to belong scale (e.g., Leary & Kelly, 2009;

Leary et al., 2013) was administered to measure the individual differences in the need to belong.

Sample items include: “I have a strong “need to belong”” and “My feelings are easily hurt when

I feel that others do not accept me.” The reliability for this scale was 0.75.

Control Variables

In line with suggestions by ESM scholars, I included several control variables to account for possible alternate influences that may affect my core variables.

Lagged variables. Following prior ESM studies and recommendations (e.g., Beal, 2015;

Scott & Barnes, 2011), I included lagged versions of my mediators and dependent variables at the prior time period as controls in the model. This helped me control for prior level of these variables and enabled me to model change in the focal constructs. Additionally, it also increases robustness of my causal claims by ruling out autocorrelations (Beal & Ghandour, 2011).

Temporal controls. Scholars have advocated controlling for possible temporal variation in substantive variables of experience sampling studies as these can represent alternate explanations for the observed relationships (e.g., Beal & Weiss, 2003; West & Hepworth, 1991).

Following prior research, I included three types of temporal controls. First, I controlled for the day of the week to account for possible variations in my substantive variables caused by the day of the week by including a variable that ranged from 1 to 5 (e.g., Rosen, Koopman, Gabriel, &

Johnson, 2016). Second, I also controlled for a possible linear trend by controlling for the study day, which was included as a monotonically increasing variables that varied from 1 to 15 (e.g.,

Lanaj, Johnson, & Wang, 2016; Sonnentag & Starzyk, 2015). Third, I also controlled for weekly cyclical trends in my study variables by using the sine and cosine of the weekday variable with a period equal to one week (Beal & Ghandour, 2011; Gabriel et al., 2018).

Frequency of work intrusions in second half of the day (Time 2). For all my end of the day outcomes, I controlled for the effect of work intrusion frequency between Time 1 and

Time 2 surveys because I was interested in isolating the effect of the work intrusion episode on the end of day outcomes measured at Time 2 (e.g., Rosen et al., 2016). For this purpose, I measured the frequency of work intrusions at Time 2 using a 5-item scale developed by Parke et al. (2018). Employees were asked to rate the items based on the work intrusions encountered since the previous survey. Sample item included, “I was interrupted by people seeking information from me.” The average reliability for this scale was 0.83.

Analytical Strategy

Given the multilevel structure of my data (days within individuals), I used multi-level path analysis in Mplus 7.11 to check my hypothesized relationships. I first confirmed whether there was sufficient within and between person variance in the focal variables by running an unconditional model (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Culpepper, 2013). As seen in Table 2, all level-1, within individual variables demonstrated substantial within-person variance that justified the use of a multilevel model (González-Romá & Hernández, 2017; LeBreton & Senter, 2008).

As part of the multi-level analysis, I centered the within individual predictors around each person’s mean (i.e. group mean centering), while the between individual variable (trait need to belong) was grand mean centered (e.g., Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).

Group mean centering at the within level allows an examination of pure within individual

62 relationships by controlling for any between individual confounds (Gabriel et al., 2018). In line with Beal’s (2015) recommendations, and prior experience sampling studies (e.g., Koopman et al., 2016; Lanaj et al., 2016), all substantive within individual relationships were modeled as random slopes, while control variable relationships were modeled as fixed effects. Further, in line with suggestions by Kline (2015) parallel mediators were allowed to covary, as were the dependent variables (e.g., Koopman et al., 2016).

Table 2 – Percentage of Within Individual Variance among Daily Variables

Within individual Between individual % Within Constructs 2 2 variance (σ ) variance (τ ) individual variance Interrupted task goal progress (T1) 0.671 0.195 77% Pleasantness of interaction (T1) 0.478 0.165 74% Annoyance (T1) 0.968 0.313 76% Happiness (T1) 0.909 0.444 67% Interrupted task urgency (T1) 1.054 0.476 69% Alternate task goal progress (T1) 0.635 0.357 64% Interpersonal affect (T1) 0.622 0.282 69% Perceived interrupter guilt (T1) 0.931 0.408 70% Surface acting (T1) 0.983 0.470 68% Citizenship behavior (T1) 0.407 0.153 73% Counterproductive behavior (T2) 0.156 0.084 65% Citizenship behavior (T2) 0.257 0.221 54% Job satisfaction (T2) 0.216 0.826 21% Work effort (T2) 0.445 0.498 47% Job performance (T2) 0.278 0.246 53% Note: % Within individual variance was computed as σ2 / (τ2 + σ2 ) (LeBreton & Senter, 2008)

To test my within individual interaction effects, for each level-1 moderator, I created an interaction term by multiplying the group-mean centered independent variable and moderator

(e.g., Lanaj, Kim, Koopman, & Matta, 2018; Schwab, 2013). This interaction term was modeled at the within individual level and was included with the main effect of the moderator (Cohen,

Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Stone & Hollenbeck, 1984). For the cross level interaction, I modeled the main effect of the moderator on the within individual outcome variable (i.e.

63 annoyance and happiness), as well as its influence on the within individual relationship between the independent variable and the outcome (Aguinis et al., 2013). For calculating the indirect effects, I utilized the strategy suggested by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) and performed a bootstrap procedure with 20,000 iterations to estimate the confidence intervals for each hypothesized indirect effect. The covariance between the adjacent random slopes that comprised the indirect effects was not significant and hence was ignored as recommended by Tofighi, West, and MacKinnon (2013). The direct effect from the independent variables to the dependent variables was also included in the analysis.

Given the complexity of the overarching model shown in Figure 1, I analyzed two separate models shown in Figures 2 and 3, based on the type of outcomes of work intrusions.

The model in Figure 2 examines the interpersonal impact of work intrusions on event level as well as end of the day level of interpersonal behaviors via the action tendencies of the two intervening emotions. The model in Figure 3 studies the end of the day well-being and performance implications of the two emotions elicited during work intrusions by focusing on the end of the day reports of job satisfaction, work effort, and job performance as the outcomes.

In both models, I modeled all the variables (i.e., predictors, mediators, moderators, outcomes and controls) simultaneously. This allowed me to examine the mediating effects of the two emotions simultaneously (e.g., Koopman et al., 2016). Further, as stated, in both models, I controlled for the study day, weekday, weekly cyclic trends, and the prior levels of the mediators and the outcomes (e.g., Beal, 2015). Also, to isolate the effects of the work intrusion episode on the end of the day outcomes, I controlled for work intrusion frequency between Time 1 and Time

2 surveys when examining the end of the day outcomes in both the models (e.g., Rosen et al.,

2016).

Figure 2 – A Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions

Figure 3 – A Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions

RESULTS

In this section, I summarize the results of the multi-level analysis for the two models in the figures. I first begin with the model of the interpersonal outcomes of work intrusions.

Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Work Intrusions (Figure 2)

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for the variables included in the model shown in Figure 2. For level 2 correlations, all within individual variables were aggregated to level 2. Before testing the hypotheses, I ran multi-level confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the distinctive factor structure of my focal variables. At level 1, I included the within person variables from Figure 2 (except perceived interrupter guilt which was a single item), along with deep acting, which was modeled as an outcome parallel to surface acting (Uy et al., 2017) and Time 2 work intrusion frequency, which was a control. At level 2, I modeled trait need to belong. The model showed acceptable fit (2 = 5099.290, df = 1667, CFI=0.90,

RMSEA=0.05, SRMRwithin=0.05, SRMRbetween=0.07) (e.g., Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Finch, Bolin,

& Kelley, 2017; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015; Qin, Huang, Johnson, Hu, & Ju, 2018).

Further, the fit of the hypothesized model was better than alternate models where a) all

OCB items—event level and end of day—were included as a single factor (2=5585.254, df=1519, CFI=0.87, RMSEA=0.06, SRMRwithin=0.06, SRMRbetween=0.07); b) pleasantness of social interaction during the intrusions and episodic citizenship behaviors were loaded on a

2 single factor ( =5840.882, df=1519, CFI=0.86, RMSEA=0.06, SRMRwithin=0.06, SRMRbetween

=0.07); c) surface acting and annoyance were loaded onto a single factor, in light of their high

2 correlation ( = 6537.917, df=1679, CFI=0.85, RMSEA=0.05, SRMRwithin=0.06,

SRMRbetween=0.07); and d) interrupted and alternate task goal progress were loaded as a single factor since they both focus on goal progress and had high correlation (2=8012.155, df=1679,

CFI=0.80, RMSEA=0.07, SRMRwithin=0.07, SRMRbetween =0.07). These results provide overall support for the uniqueness of my study variables.

Hypotheses tests. I proceeded to test my hypotheses using simultaneous multilevel path analysis. As is evident from Table 4, although the relationship of interrupted task goal progress with annoyance (ϒ = -0.04, n.s.) and happiness (ϒ = 0.05 , n.s.) was in the expected direction, it was not significant. Thus, hypothesis 1 and 2 were not supported. However, the relationship between pleasantness of social interaction with annoyance (ϒ = -0.77, p < 0.05) and happiness

(ϒ = 0.51, p < 0.05) was significant and in the expected direction, supporting hypotheses 3 and

4. Further, in terms of the moderation hypotheses, although interrupted task urgency had a main effect on both annoyance (ϒ = 0.11, p < 0.05) and happiness (ϒ = -0.1, p < 0.05), it did not moderate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance (ϒ = -0.03, n.s.) or happiness (ϒ = 0.06, n.s.). Thus, hypotheses 5a and 5b were not supported. Similarly, alternate task goal progress did have a significant main effect on annoyance (ϒ = -0.1, p < 0.05), but did not moderate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance (ϒ =

0.03, n.s.) or happiness (ϒ = 0.03, n.s.), leading to lack of support for hypotheses 6a and 6b.

Interpersonal affect had a significant main effect on annoyance (ϒ = -0.17, p < 0.05) and happiness (ϒ = 0.2, p < 0.05) but its interaction with interrupted task goal progress on annoyance was not significant at the 0.05 level (ϒ = 0.10, p<0.10), thus not supporting hypothesis 7.

Regarding the second set of moderators, perceived interrupter guilt did not moderate the relationship between pleasantness of social interaction and annoyance (ϒ = 0.01, n.s.) or happiness (ϒ = -0.05, n.s.), thus, not supporting hypotheses 8a and 8b. Similarly, the cross-level interaction of trait need to belong on the relationship of pleasantness of social interaction with annoyance (ϒ = 0.02, n.s.) and happiness (ϒ = -0.01, n.s.) was not significant, leading to lack of support for hypotheses 9a and 9b.

Table 3 – Descriptive Statistics for the Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)

Interrupte Pleasantne Interrup Alternate Inter- Annoy Happi Interrupt Surface Deep Intrusion d task goal ss of ted task goal personal OCB CWB OCB Mean SD ance ness -er guilt acting acting Frequency progress interaction urgency progress affect (T1) (T2) (T2) (T1) (T1) (T1) (T1) (T1) (T2) (T1) (T1) (T1) (T1) (T1)

Within-person (Level-1) Interrupted task goal 3.9 0.9 progress (T1) Pleasantness of 4.3 0.8 0.18* interaction (T1) Annoyance (T1) 1.9 1.1 -0.20* -0.65* Happiness (T1) 2.6 1.2 0.18* 0.45* -0.52* Interrupted task urgency 2.6 1.2 -0.16* -0.17* 0.26* -0.21* (T1) Alternate task goal 3.8 1.0 0.40* 0.20* -0.23* 0.15* -0.22* progress (T1) Interpersonal affect (T1) 3.9 0.9 0.08* 0.39* -0.35* 0.32* -0.06 0.01 Perceived partner guilt 2.0 1.2 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.08* -0.02 0.16* (T1) Surface acting (T1) 2.1 1.2 -0.21* -0.43* 0.49* -0.35* 0.19* -0.15* -0.41* -0.09* OCB (T1) 4.1 0.7 0.12* 0.44* -0.40* 0.34* -0.09* 0.11* 0.39* 0.07* -0.34* CWB (T2) 1.4 0.5 -0.04* -0.11* 0.10* -0.06 -0.02 -0.01 -0.04 0.05 0.11* -0.15* OCB (T2) 3.7 0.7 0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.02 0.05 -0.04 -0.03 0.06 -0.18* Deep Acting (T1) 2.5 1.2 0.01 0.01 -0.04 0.09* 0.02 -0.02 0.07* -0.03 0.12* 0.12* -0.03 0.06 Intrusion Frequency (T2) 1.9 0.8 -0.03 0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.10* -0.09* 0.05 0.08* -0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.16* 0.02 Between-person (Level 2) Trait need to belong 3.3 0.6 -0.09 -0.04 0.03 -0.06 -0.06 0.07 -0.20 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.13 0.15 -0.6 -0.12 Level-1 n = 824; Level-2 n = 117; Correlations for the level 1 variables represent group-mean centered relationships among the daily variables at the within-individual level. For correlations at level 2, within-individual variables were aggregated to provide estimates of between-individual relationships with level 2 variables. OCB = Organizational citizenship behavior, CWB = Counterproductive work behavior, T1=Time 1 and T2=Time 2. * = p < 0.05

For the relationship between the two emotions and interpersonal outcomes, considering annoyance first, it was positively and significantly related to surface acting during the work intrusion (ϒ = 0.42, p < 0.05), but not to subsequent counterproductive work behavior (ϒ =

0.04, n.s.), thus supporting hypothesis 10a but not 10b. Further, as seen in Table 5, annoyance did not mediate the indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and surface acting (ϒ = -0.016, CI: -0.05 to 0.01) or CWB (ϒ = -0.001, CI: -0.006 to 0.001). Thus, hypotheses 11a and 11b were not supported. However, annoyance did mediate the indirect relationship between pleasantness of social interaction and surface acting in the expected direction since the confidence interval excluded zero (ϒ = -0.325, CI: -0.4 to -0.24). Thus, hypothesis 12a was supported, but hypothesis 12b was not since annoyance did not mediate the indirect relationship between pleasantness of social interaction and counterproductive behaviors at Time 2 (ϒ = -0.029, CI: -0.06 to 0.0005).

Coming to the relationship between happiness and the interpersonal outcomes, happiness during the work intrusion was positively related to citizenship behaviors during the intrusion (ϒ

= 0.13, p < 0.05), but not to citizenship behaviors measured at Time 2. Thus, hypothesis 13a was supported but not 13b. In terms of the indirect effects, happiness did not mediate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and citizenship behaviors at the event level (ϒ = 0.006,

CI: -0.006 to 0.021) or at the end of the day level (0.00, CI: -0.006 to 0.001) thus not supporting hypotheses 14a and 14b. Finally, happiness mediated the indirect effect of pleasantness of social interaction on event level citizenship behavior (ϒ = 0.065, CI: 0.039 to 0.096), however, the indirect relationship with end of the day citizenship behaviors was not significantly mediated (ϒ

= -0.003, CI: -0.028 to 0.021). Thus, hypothesis 15a was supported but not 15b.

Table 4 – Results of Multi-level Path Model for the Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)

Happiness Surface acting Counterproductive Citizenship Citizenship Annoyance (T1) Variables (T1) (T1) behavior (T2) behavior (T1) behavior (T2) ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE Level-1 (within person variables) Interrupted task goal progress (T1) -0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 -0.14* 0.04 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 Pleasantness of social interaction (T1) -0.77* 0.05 0.51* 0.06 -0.16* 0.06 -0.02 0.03 0.32* 0.03 0.02 0.03 Annoyance (T1) - - - - 0.42* 0.04 0.04 0.02 - - - - Happiness (T1) ------0.13* 0.02 -0.01 0.02 Interrupted task urgency (T1) 0.11* 0.02 -0.10* 0.03 ------Alternate task goal progress (T1) -0.10* 0.04 0.02 0.04 ------Interpersonal affect (T1) -0.17* 0.04 0.20* 0.04 ------Perceived interrupter guilt (T1) 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.04 ------Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X -0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 ------Interrupted task urgency (T1)

Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 ------Alternate task goal progress (T1)

Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X 0.10+ 0.05 -0.03 0.06 ------Interpersonal affect (T1) Pleasantness of social interaction (T1) 0.01 0.06 -0.05 0.06 ------X Interrupter guilt (T1) Controls Intrusion frequency (T2) ------0.01 0.02 - - 0.14* 0.03 Study day -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02* 0.01 Week day 0.01 0.08 -0.04 0.10 -0.23* 0.10 -0.09 0.05 -0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 Weekly trend (sine) 0.10 0.13 -0.18 0.15 -0.38* 0.19 -0.13 0.08 -0.05 0.11 0.05 0.10 Weekly trend (cosine) -0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.09 -0.12 0.10 -0.08 0.05 -0.07 0.07 0.01 0.06 Level-2 (between-person variable) Trait need to belong 0.06 0.12 -0.02 0.13 ------Cross level moderation 0.02 0.08 -0.01 0.12 ------Level-1 n = 824 and Level-2 n = 117. Estimates are unstandardized coefficients with standard errors. Estimator was Maximum Likelihood. Deep acting was included as a parallel outcome to surface acting (e.g., Uy et al., 2017) but was not significantly related to annoyance or independent variables and is not shown. * = p < 0.05. + = p<0.10.

I checked the variance explained for the significantly predicted variables (LaHuis,

Hartman, Hakoyama, & Clark, 2014). For this, I followed recommendations of prior researchers

(e.g., Snijders & Bosker, 1994) and compared the change in the total and the residual variance

between the null and final models for these variables (Rosen et al., 2016). The hypothesized

model in Figure 2 predicted 59 % variance in annoyance, 41% variance in happiness, 35 %

variance in surface acting, and 21% variance in event level citizenship behavior.

Table 5 – Indirect Effects for the Model of Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2)

Hypotheses Indirect effect Estimate Confidence interval

Indirect effects via annoyance

H11a Interrupted task goal progress → Annoyance → Surface acting (T1) -0.016 -0.05 to 0.01 H11b Interrupted task goal progress → Annoyance → CWB (T2) -0.001 -0.006 to 0.001 H12a Pleasantness of social interaction → Annoyance → Surface acting (T1) -0.325* -0.4 to -0.24 H12b Pleasantness of social interaction → Annoyance → CWB (T2) -0.029 -0.06 to 0.0005 Indirect effects via happiness H14a Interrupted task goal progress → Happiness → OCB (T1) 0.006 -0.006 to 0.021 H14b Interrupted task goal progress → Happiness → OCB (T2) 0.00 -0.006 to 0.001 H15a Pleasantness of social interaction → Happiness → OCB (T1) 0.065* 0.039 to 0.096 H15b Pleasantness of social interaction → Happiness → OCB (T2) -0.003 -0.028 to 0.021

Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Work Intrusions (Figure 3)

Table 6 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for the model in Figure 3.

For level 2 correlations, all within individual variables were aggregated to level 2. Before testing

the hypotheses, I ran a multi-level confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the factor structure of

my variables. At level 1, I included the within individual variables shown in Figure 3 (except

perceived interrupter guilt which was a single item), with Time 2 work intrusion frequency,

which was a control. At level 2, I modeled trait need to belong. This model showed acceptable fit

2 ( = 3614.732, df =935, CFI=0.90, RMSEA=0.05, SRMRwithin=0.05, SRMRbetween =0.07) (e.g.,

Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Finch et al., 2017; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015; Qin et al., 2018).

Table 6 – Descriptive Statistics for the Model of Performance and Well-being Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 3) Interrupted Pleasant Interrupt Alternate Inter- Job Job Annoy Happi Interrup Work Intrusion task goal -ness of ed task task goal personal satisfa perfor Mean SD ance ness ter guilt effort Frequency progress interacti urgency progress affect ction mance (T1) (T1) (T1) (T2) (T2) (T1) on (T1) (T1) (T1) (T1) (T2) (T2) Within-person (Level-1) Interrupted task goal 3.9 0.9 progress (T1) Pleasantness of interaction 4.3 0.8 0.18* (T1) Annoyance (T1) 1.9 1.1 -0.20* -0.65* Happiness (T1) 2.6 1.2 0.18* 0.45* -0.52* Interrupted task urgency 2.6 1.2 -0.16* -0.17* 0.26* -0.21* (T1) Alternate task goal progress 3.8 1.0 0.40* 0.20* -0.23* 0.15* -0.22* (T1) Interpersonal affect (T1) 3.9 0.9 0.08* 0.39* -0.35* 0.32* -0.06 0.01

Perceived partner guilt (T1) 2.0 1.2 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.08* -0.02 0.16*

Job satisfaction (T2) 3.6 1.0 0.10* 0.14* -0.21* 0.09* -0.09* 0.14* 0.05 -0.01 Work effort (T2) 3.8 0.9 0.2 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.08* 0.03 -0.06 0.02 0.06 Job performance (T2) 4.3 0.7 0.09* 0.06 -0.05 0.02 -0.10* 0.15* -0.04 -0.10* 0.21* 0.4* Intrusion Frequency (T2) 1.9 0.8 -0.03 0.01 0.05 -0.02 0.10* -0.10* 0.05 0.08* -0.12* 0.08* -0.1* Between-person (Level 2) Trait need to belong 3.32 0.56 -0.03 0.02 0.06 -0.03 -0.02 0.05 -0.18 0.01 0.05 0.07 -0.01 -0.12 Level-1 n = 824; Level-2 n = 117; Correlations for the level 1 variables represent group-mean centered relationships among the daily variables at the within-individual level of analysis. For correlations at level 2, within individual variables were aggregated to provide estimates of between individual relationships with level 2 variables. T1=Time 1 and T2=Time 2. * = p < 0.05

Further, the fit of the hypothesized model was better than alternate models where a) items for work effort and job performance were included as a single factor, given that both are related

2 to the employee’s work tasks ( = 4866.482, df=944, CFI=0.85, RMSEA=0.07, SRMRwithin

=0.06, SRMRbetween=0.07); b) interpersonal affect and pleasantness of interaction were included as a single factor, given their high correlation (2= 5901.611, df=944, CFI=0.80, RMSEA=0.08,

SRMRwithin=0.07, SRMRbetween=0.07); and c) interrupted and alternate task goal progress were loaded as a single factor since they both focus on goal progress and have high correlation (2=

6938.157, df= 1165, CFI=0.79, RMSEA=0.08, SRMRwithin=0.07, SRMRbetween =0.07). These results provide overall support for the uniqueness of my study variables.

Hypotheses tests. I then performed the simultaneous multi-level path analysis (see Table

7). Results about the relationship between the predictors and mediators were similar to the previous model. Interrupted task goal progress was not significantly related to either annoyance

(ϒ = -0.04 , n.s.) or happiness (ϒ = 0.05, n.s.), while the pleasantness of social interaction was significantly related to both annoyance (ϒ = -0.77, p < 0.05) and happiness (ϒ = 0.51, p < 0.05).

Thus, again, hypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported, while hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported.

The results related to the moderation hypotheses also mirrored the results from the previous model. The main effect of interrupted task urgency on annoyance (ϒ = 0.11, p < 0.05) and happiness (ϒ = -0.1, p < 0.05) was significant but its interaction effect on annoyance (ϒ = -

0.03, n.s.) and happiness (ϒ = 0.06, n.s.) was not significant. Thus, hypotheses 5a and 5b were not supported. Alternate task goal progress was related to annoyance (ϒ = -0.1, p < 0.05), but did not moderate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance (ϒ = 0.03, n.s.) or happiness (ϒ = 0.03, n.s.), resulting in lack of support for hypotheses 6a and 6b.

Interpersonal affect had a significant main effect on annoyance (ϒ = -0.17, p < 0.05) and happiness (ϒ = 0.2, p < 0.05) but its interaction with interrupted task goal progress on annoyance

73 was not significant (ϒ = 0.10, p<0.10), thus not supporting hypothesis 7. With regard to the second set of moderators, perceived interrupter guilt did not moderate the relationship between pleasantness of social interaction and annoyance (ϒ = 0.01, n.s.) or happiness (ϒ = -0.05, n.s.), thus, not supporting hypotheses 8a and 8b. Similarly, the cross-level interaction of trait need to belong on the relationship of pleasantness of social interaction with annoyance (ϒ = 0.02, n.s.) and happiness (ϒ = -0.01, n.s.) was not significant.

For the relationship between the emotions and the outcomes, annoyance was negatively related to job satisfaction (ϒ = -0.10, p < 0.05). Further, as seen in Table 8, while annoyance did not mediate the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and job satisfaction (ϒ =

0.004, CI: -0.003 to 0.04 ), it did mediate the indirect relationship between pleasantness of social interaction and job satisfaction (ϒ = 0.076, CI: 0.03 to 0.123). Thus, hypotheses 16a and 16c were supported but not 16b. Further, happiness was not significantly related to job satisfaction

(ϒ = 0.01, n.s.) and did not mediate the relationship of interrupted task goal progress and job satisfaction (ϒ = 0.001, CI: -0.002 to 0.005), or of pleasantness of interaction and job satisfaction

(ϒ = 0.002, CI: -0.023 to 0.025). Thus, hypotheses 17a, 17b, and 17c lacked supported.

With regard to work effort, annoyance was not significantly related to work effort (ϒ =

0.01, n.s.), and neither did it mediate the indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and work effort (ϒ = 0.001, CI: -0.008 to 0.002), nor between pleasantness of social interaction and work effort (ϒ = -0.009, CI: -0.06 to 0.05). Thus, hypotheses 18a, 18b, and 18c lacked support. Similarly, happiness was not significantly related to work effort (ϒ = 0.01, n.s. ), and neither mediated the indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and work effort (ϒ = 0.002, CI: -0.003 to 0.007), nor between pleasantness of social interaction and work effort (ϒ = 0.003, CI: -0.032 to 0.039). Thus, hypotheses 19a,19b, and 19c were not supported.

Table 7 - Results of Multi-level Path Model for the Performance and Wellbeing Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 3)

Annoyance (T1) Happiness (T1) Job satisfaction (T2) Work effort (T2) Job performance (T1) Variables ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE Level-1 (within person variables) Interrupted task goal progress (T1) -0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05+ 0.03 Pleasantness of social interaction (T1) -0.77* 0.05 0.51* 0.06 -0.01 0.03 -0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 Annoyance (T1) - - - - -0.10* 0.03 0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.03 Happiness (T1) - - - - 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 -0.01 0.02 Interrupted task urgency (T1) 0.11* 0.03 -0.10* 0.03 ------Alternate task goal progress (T1) -0.10* 0.04 0.02 0.04 ------Interpersonal affect (T1) -0.17* 0.04 0.20* 0.04 ------Perceived interrupter guilt (T1) 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.04 ------Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X -0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 ------Interrupted task urgency (T1)

Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 ------Alternate task goal progress (T1)

Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X 0.10+ 0.05 -0.03 0.06 ------Interpersonal affect (T1) Pleasantness of social interaction (T1) 0.01 0.06 -0.05 0.06 ------X Interrupter guilt (T1) Controls Work Intrusion Frequency (T2) - - - - -0.09* 0.03 0.08+ 0.04 -0.09* 0.03 Study day -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 Week day 0.01 0.08 -0.04 0.10 -0.09 0.06 -0.15 0.09 -0.03 0.07 Weekly trend (sine) 0.10 0.13 -0.18 0.15 -0.10 0.09 -0.21 0.14 -0.09 0.11 Weekly trend (cosine) -0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.09 -0.11 0.06 -0.16 0.09 -0.03 0.07 Level-2 (between-person variable) Trait need to belong 0.06 0.12 -0.02 0.13 ------Cross level moderation 0.02 0.08 -0.01 0.12 ------Level-1 n = 824 and Level-2 n = 117. Estimates are unstandardized coefficients with standard errors. Estimator was Maximum Likelihood * = p < 0.05. + = p<0.10

Lastly, annoyance was also not related significantly to job performance (ϒ = -0.02, n.s.),

and did not mediate the indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and job

performance (ϒ = 0.001, CI: -0.001 to 0.007), nor the relationship between pleasantness of social

interaction and job performance (ϒ =.0.014, CI: -0.03 to 0.06). Thus, hypotheses 20a, 20b, and

20c were not supported. Happiness was also not related significantly to job performance (ϒ = -

0.01, n.s.), and did not mediate the indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress

and job performance (ϒ = 0.001, CI: -0.004 to 0.003), nor the relationship between pleasantness

of social interaction and job performance (ϒ = 0.001, CI: -0.027 to 0.027). Thus, hypotheses 21a,

21b, and 21c lacked support. I checked the variance explained for the mediators and outcomes

that were significantly predicted similar to the previous model (LaHuis et al., 2014; Snijders &

Bosker, 1994). The model in Figure 3 predicted 59 % variance in annoyance, 41% variance in

happiness, and 14% variance in job satisfaction. I summarize the findings for both the models

and discuss their theoretical and practical implications in the detail in the discussion section.

Table 8 – Indirect Effects for the Model for Performance and Well-being Outcomes (Figure 3)

Hypotheses Indirect effect Estimate Confidence interval

Indirect effects via annoyance H16b Interrupted task goal progress → Annoyance → Job satisfaction 0.004 -0.003 to 0.04 H16c Pleasantness of social interaction → Annoyance → Job satisfaction 0.076* 0.03 to 0.123 H18b Interrupted task goal progress → Annoyance → Work effort 0.001 -0.008 to 0.002 H18c Pleasantness of social interaction → Annoyance → Work effort -0.009 -0.06 to 0.05 H20b Interrupted task goal progress → Annoyance → Job performance 0.001 -0.001 to 0.007 H20c Pleasantness of social interaction → Annoyance → Job performance 0.014 -0.03 to 0.06 Indirect effects via happiness

H17b Interrupted task goal progress → Happiness → Job satisfaction 0.001 -0.002 to 0.005 H17c Pleasantness of social interaction → Happiness → Job satisfaction 0.002 -0.023 to 0.025 H19b Interrupted task goal progress → Happiness → Work effort 0.002 -0.003 to 0.007 H19c Pleasantness of social interaction → Happiness → Work effort 0.003 -0.032 to 0.039 H21b Interrupted task goal progress → Happiness → Job performance 0.001 -0.004 to 0.003 H21c Pleasantness of social interaction → Happiness → Job performance 0.001 -0.027 to 0.027

POST HOC ANALYSES

Subsequent to testing of my model, I ran several post hoc analyses to probe my results in greater detail. First, following prior research using ESM (e.g., Parke et al., 2018; Rosen et al.,

2016), I checked both the models for participants who had completed at least 3 days of daily surveys. There were 94 participants with 3 or more days of responses with 790-day level data points (average 11 days per person). In case of both the models (Figure 2 and Figure 3) the effect sizes and the pattern of significance of relationships remained unchanged.

Second, I then I checked the models using several theoretically relevant control variables indicated by prior research that could have affected the relationships in my model. Intrusions research has indicated that the duration of a work intrusion can play a role in influencing the experience of the interrupted individual (Monk & Kidd, 2008; Monk et al., 2008). Hence, I included the duration of the work intrusion (mean = 20 mins, std. dev = 23 mins) that was collected in the Time 1 survey as a level 1 control variable. Further, in a recent paper on work intrusion episodes, Leroy and Glomb (2018) controlled for the frequency of work intrusions occurring before an intrusion, suggesting that this frequency of intrusions prior to the intrusion episode can influence the employee’s reaction to the focal episode. While I had controlled for the frequency of work intrusions between the first and the second survey (i.e. the second half of the workday) in my main analysis, I also ran the model controlling for the frequency of work intrusions occurring in the first half of the day as a level 1 control. This was measured with the same scale with which the frequency of work intrusions in the second half of the day was measured (Parke et al., 2018). The average reliability of the scale was 0.79. Additionally, because the daily workload of the employees may act as a context that varies across days and within which the experience of work intrusions is embedded and appraised (Parke et al., 2018;

Zohar et al., 2003), I controlled for daily workload. It was measured using the job demands scale

77 of Janssen (2001) in the Time 2 survey with a reliability of 0.93. All control variables were modeled as level 1 fixed effects and their effects on the mediators and outcomes were controlled for in both the models (Figure 2 and Figure 3). However, again the effect sizes and pattern of significance of relationships remained unchanged for both the models.

Third, in case of my model with interpersonal outcomes (Figure 2), the relationships I had hypothesized were aligned with the dominant action tendencies of the two emotions

(Elfenbein, 2007; Frijda et al., 1989; Lazarus, 1991a). Thus, on one hand, I suggested that annoyance, which is an aversive emotion and leads to an action tendency of negative interpersonal actions would be linked to surface acting and end of the day reports of counterproductive behavior. On the other hand, the due to the action tendencies of positively associating with others and helping them, happiness was linked with citizenship behaviors at both the episode and end of the day level. Thus, the valence of the behavioral outcomes and the two emotions hypothesized to predict them was symmetric.

However, in my post hoc analysis, I explored whether a cross relationship between the emotions and outcomes is also possible. Specifically, it is possible that the negative action tendencies of annoyance may lead the employee to cut back on their citizenship behaviors, while the positive action tendencies of happiness can imply that employees may engage in lower negative behaviors. In the final step of my post hoc analysis, I modeled these cross relationships among the emotions and oppositely valenced behavioral outcomes. So, along with all the relationships analyzed earlier in my main analysis for the model in Figure 2, I also allowed happiness to relate to surface acting and end of the day counterproductive behavior and annoyance to citizenship behavior at both episode and end of the day level. Like before, deep acting was modeled as a parallel outcome with surface acting and this time, it was related to both annoyance and happiness (Uy et al., 2017).

Table 9 – Post Hoc Analysis for Model with Interpersonal Outcomes of Daily Work Intrusions (Figure 2) Happiness Surface acting Counterproductive Citizenship Citizenship Annoyance (T1) Variables (T1) (T1) behavior (T2) behavior (T1) behavior (T2) ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE ϒ SE Level-1 (within person variables) Interrupted task goal progress (T1) -0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 -0.13* 0.04 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 Pleasantness of social interaction (T1) -0.77* 0.05 0.51* 0.06 -0.11+ 0.06 -0.01 0.03 0.22* 0.03 0.04 0.03 Annoyance (T1) - - - - 0.39* 0.05 0.04 0.02 -0.13* 0.03 0.02 0.03 Happiness (T1) - - - - -0.12* 0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.09* 0.02 -0.01 0.02 Interrupted task urgency (T1) 0.11* 0.02 -0.10* 0.03 ------Alternate task goal progress (T1) -0.10* 0.04 0.02 0.04 ------Interpersonal affect (T1) -0.17* 0.04 0.20* 0.04 ------Perceived interrupter guilt (T1) 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.04 ------Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X -0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 ------Interrupted task urgency (T1) Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 ------Alternate task goal progress (T1) Interrupted task goal progress (T1) X 0.10+ 0.05 -0.03 0.06 ------Interpersonal affect (T1) Pleasantness of social interaction (T1) 0.01 0.06 -0.05 0.06 ------X Interrupter guilt (T1) Intrusion Frequency (T2) ------0.01 0.02 - - 0.14* 0.03 Study day -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.20* 0.01 Week day 0.01 0.08 -0.04 0.10 -0.23* 0.10 -0.09 0.05 -0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 Weekly trend (sine) -0.1 0.13 -0.18 0.15 -0.39* 0.15 -0.13 0.08 -0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 Weekly trend (Cosine) -0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.09 -0.11 0.10 -0.08 0.05 -0.10 0.06 0.01 0.06 Level-2 (between-person variable) Trait need to belong 0.06 0.12 -0.02 0.13 ------Cross level moderation 0.02 0.08 -0.01 0.12 ------Level-1 n = 824 and Level-2 n = 117. Estimates are unstandardized coefficients with standard errors. Estimator was Maximum Likelihood. Values in italics demonstrate the relationships that were added to the earlier model as part of post hoc analysis. Like before, deep acting was added as a parallel outcome to surface acting (Uy et al., 2017) and is not included in the table. It was not significantly related to either annoyance or happiness. * = p < 0.05. + = p<0.10.

Table 9 presents the results of these analyses. As is evident, the significance and direction of all the previously examined effects from Table 8 were the same as before. The values in italics in Table 9 show the relationships added newly to the model in Figure 2 during post hoc analysis.

Happiness was negatively related to surface acting during the intrusion (ϒ = -0.012, p<0.05), but was not related to end of the day counterproductive work behaviors (ϒ = -0.01, n.s.). Similarly, annoyance was negatively related to episode level citizenship behaviors (ϒ = -0.13, p<0.05) but not to end of the day reports of citizenship behaviors (ϒ = 0.02, n.s.). Indirect effects analysis revealed that along with the two indirect effects found to be significant in the earlier analysis

(seen in Table 5), the positive relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction and episode level citizenship behaviors was mediated by annoyance (ϒ = 0.095, CI: 0.05 to 0.15), and the negative relationship between pleasantness of social interaction and surface acting was mediated by happiness (ϒ = -0.056, CI: -0.102 to -0.02). Overall, the post hoc analysis provided more support for the influence of work intrusions on episode level interpersonal behaviors.

DISCUSSION

Most of prior work intrusions literature has focused on the negative effects of being interrupted on an ongoing task for the interrupted individual. Yet, the scope of a work intrusion also includes the interrupting task, unexpected social interaction with the interrupter and it often occurs in an ongoing relational context between the interrupter and the interrupted employee. As such, I argued that it is important to take a more balanced and comprehensive approach to studying the experience of work intrusions and their outcomes. Accordingly, integrating self- regulation theory with the appraisal theory of emotion, I conducted a study with an episodic approach that examined how factors related to both interrupted and interrupting task, as well as the interrupted and interrupting individual shaped the emotional experience of a work intrusion and subsequent outcomes. To empirically test my research questions, I conducted an experience

80 sampling study and gathered data from 117 full time employees. Here, I first summarize the findings of this study and then discuss their theoretical and practical implications, ending the section with an elaboration of the limitations of the study and future research avenues.

Summary of Findings

As noted in the results section, I tested two models—one with interpersonal behaviors as the outcomes (Figure 2) and the other with performance and wellbeing outcomes (Figure 3).

Appendix A summarizes results for all the hypotheses. In both the models, the relationship of interrupted task goal progress with annoyance and happiness was in the expected direction but did not reach a level or significance. An extension of these non-significant relationships was that the interaction effects of all three moderators of these relationships—interrupted task urgency, alternate goal progress and interpersonal affect—were not significant. Although a point to note is that the main effects of these three moderators on the emotions were significant (except for the effect of alternate task goal progress on happiness). In contrast to the above, the hypothesized relationship between the quality of social interaction during the intrusion and both the emotions was significant, with more pleasant social interactions with the interrupter leading to greater happiness and lowered annoyance. However, again, the interaction effects of the two moderators of these relationships—trait need to belong and perceived interrupter guilt—were not significant.

For outcomes, with regard to the model on interpersonal outcomes (Figure 2), emotions triggered during the intrusion did impact event level interpersonal behaviors directed at the interrupter. Annoyance was positively related to surface acting and mediated the indirect relationship between quality of social interaction and surface acting. Relatedly, happiness led to more citizenship behaviors toward the interrupter and mediated the indirect relationship between quality of social interaction and event level citizenship behaviors. Moreover, my post hoc analyses also revealed support for the negative relationships between annoyance and citizenship

81 behaviors, and between happiness and surface acting. Further, in both these cases the emotions mediated the indirect relationship between the quality of social interaction and interpersonal behavior toward the interrupter. The relationship of the two emotions with end of day reports of citizenship behavior and counterproductive behavior, however, was not significant.

With regard to performance and wellbeing related outcomes (Figure 3), the quality of social interaction with the interrupter was indirectly and positively related to end of day job satisfaction via the mediating mechanism of lowered annoyance. Other outcomes from this model—job performance and work effort—were neither significantly related with annoyance and happiness nor indirectly related to interrupted task goal progress and social interaction quality of the work intrusion. While not all the hypothesized relationships were supported, there are still interesting theoretical and practical implications that can be gleaned from the study.

Theoretical Implications

An important finding in this study was the support for the role of the social interaction with the interrupter in driving the outcomes of a work intrusion, as predicted by the theory of self-regulation in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Leary & Guadagno, 2004; Stinson et al., 2015;

Stinson et al., 2010). Theoretically, this is an important extension of the literature on work intrusions that has until now focused only on the task based effects of work intrusions and their impact on employees (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018; Parke et al., 2018; Zohar et al., 2003). Instead, this finding indicates that work intrusions can be sites where social goals such as belongingness can also be affected, influencing the experience and outcomes of being interrupted in the workplace.

A key implication of this findings is that the lack of accounting for the social interaction during a work intrusion can lead to an incomplete understanding of the qualitative experience of work intrusions. A good example of this issue is the positive indirect relationship between the

82 pleasantness of social interaction with the interrupter and end of day job satisfaction via lowered annoyance found in this study. This suggests that work intrusions can be positively experienced and can even enhance employee well-being to the extent that they include a pleasant interaction with the interrupter. This notion, however, is counter to prior work intrusions research that has taken a solely task focused view and found that the aggregated effect of multiple work intrusions on employees’ work tasks leads to lowered job satisfaction and negatively affects their well- being (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018). Thus, it is possible that by not accounting for the social dimension of a work intrusion, prior research may have left out a key part of the experience of a work intrusion in arriving at the conclusion that they are typically harmful for the interrupted employee’s well-being. Hence, it is vital that future work intrusion scholars account for the effect of both the task-based impact of an intrusion as well as the social interaction with the interrupter to present a balanced and more realistic picture of the experience of being interrupted in the workplace.

An additional point related to the social aspect of work intrusions was the significant main effect of interpersonal affect on both the emotions. Specifically, interpersonal affect was related positively to happiness and negatively to annoyance triggered during the intrusion. This indicates that who the interrupter is influences the emotional reactions to being interrupted in the workplace. This notion has vital consequences for both experimental and field studies in work intrusions. A lot of prior experimental studies have used confederates who interrupt participants in the middle of ongoing tasks (e.g., Conard & Marsh, 2016; Mansi & Levy, 2013; Zijlstra et al.,

1999) but have failed to control or check for the effect the relationship between the participants and the confederate had on the outcomes. Relatedly, frequency-based field studies that focus on the aggregated effect of multiple intrusions use items that collapse intrusions by different people together (e.g., ‘People interrupted me for another task:’ Parke et al., 2018), implicitly assuming

83 work intrusions from different people to be similar in their impact and content (Baethge &

Rigotti, 2013, 2015; Hunter et al., in press; Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018; Parke et al.,

2018). However, my study suggests that this aggregation may be masking the unique effects that intrusions from different people may have on interrupted employees’ emotional experience.

Hence, episodic study designs such as the one in this study that disaggregate work intrusions from different people can be useful in teasing apart the effects of the relational dynamics between the interrupter and the interrupted employee on the experience of being interrupted.

While I have focused here on interpersonal affect, other forms of relational dynamics such as exchange relationships, interdependence, and even conflict can also influence the experience of being interrupted. Future researchers can explore these possibilities in greater depth.

Another contribution to the literature on intrusions in the workplace is the demonstration that annoyance and happiness can be triggered on being interrupted by others in the workplace.

The focus on discrete emotion brings specificity to prior intrusions research that has focused on broad affective states (Hunter et al., in press; Sonnentag et al., 2018; Zohar et al., 2003). Such specificity adds precision to the predictions of various outcomes (Gooty et al., 2009). In this case, based on the action tendencies of these two emotions, I was able to hypothesize and find support for different types of interpersonal behaviors directed at the interrupter.

Moreover, the integration of self-regulation theory (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1990, 2001) with the appraisal theory of emotions (e.g., Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Frijda, 1986; Frijda et al.,

1989; Lazarus, 1991b) to predict the specific emotions during a work intrusion, also adds to self- regulation theory. While prior theory and research on self-regulation has linked goal progress/hindrance to positive/negative affect respectively (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Ilies &

Judge, 2005; Lawrence, Carver, & Scheier, 2002; Scott et al., 2010), this research is relatively silent about the cause of this goal progress/hindrance and how employees make sense of it. Thus,

84 it becomes difficult to specify the emotion that will emerge from this affective experience. This is where appraisal theorists’ focus on how appraisals of the causes and implications of an event lead to specific emotions brings specificity to the affective consequences of self-regulatory events proposed by the self-regulation theory (Lazarus, 1991a).

The finding that happiness can be elicited during a workplace intrusion is particularly important as it questions the traditional view of work intrusions as workplace stressors (e.g.,

Baethge & Rigotti, 2013, 2015; Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018; Parke et al., 2018; Perlow,

1999). Happiness is a positive emotion that has been associated with several positive outcomes such as a sense of control, subjective wellbeing and building of psychological resources (e.g.,

Bono et al., 2013; Elfenbein, 2007; Fisher, 2010; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). As such, the study indicates that work intrusions are not necessarily stressors but also events that can help replenish employee resources and enable greater interpersonal connection via the experience of positive emotions (Lilius, 2012). Thereby eliminating all work intrusions may not necessarily reduce stressful events but can, in fact, rob employees of opportunities of experiencing positive emotions. However, because the moderators in this study were not significant, there is still scope for future scholars to examine the boundary conditions around when work intrusions are more or less likely to lead to happiness.

Further, the observation of event level interpersonal behaviors in response to being interrupted extends the understanding of the outcomes of work intrusions, and also contributes to the literature on emotion regulation. Prior work intrusions research has focused only on how work intrusions affect interrupted employees’ performance (Beck et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2013;

Leroy & Glomb, 2018; Leroy & Schmidt, 2016; Zijlstra et al., 1999) or well-being (Baethge &

Rigotti, 2015; Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018; Parke et al., 2018). However, as I show, because intrusions also involve interaction with the interrupter, the subjective experience of

85 being interrupted is also likely to influence interrupted employees’ interpersonal behaviors.

Specifically, my main and post hoc analyses together show that while annoyance led to more surface acting and reduced citizenship behaviors toward the interrupter, happiness had the opposite effect. Both these interpersonal behaviors have vital consequences for employees.

Positive behaviors such as citizenship behaviors can lead to stronger coworker exchange relationships and can help build social capital in the long run (Flynn, 2003). In contrast, surface acting can be a depleting experience, as employees use up their self-regulatory resources in curbing their negative emotions and faking positive emotional expressions (Diefendorff &

Gosserand, 2003; Grandey, 2000). The finding that work intrusions affect interpersonal behaviors thus sets the stage for an exploration of the various interpersonal consequences of being interrupted. For instance, it is possible that being interrupted can lead to avoidance behaviors where employees try to avoid the interrupters by working from their homes or in different shifts. It is also possible that interpersonal behaviors shaped by intrusions lead to a long-term impact on employee-coworker exchange relationship, collaboration or even conflict.

The finding that interrupted employees engaged in surface acting during a work intrusion is particularly important given the growing trend in the emotion regulation literature of examining emotion regulation in contexts other than just customer interactions (Grandey &

Gabriel, 2015; Ozcelik, 2013). Scholars have started examining emotion regulation in contexts such as leader interactions (Arnold, Connelly, Walsh, & Martin Ginis, 2015), workplace meetings (Shumski Thomas, Olien, Allen, Rogelberg, & Kello, 2018), and even marital interaction (Yanchus, Eby, Lance, & Drollinger, 2010). By advancing work intrusions as a specific work event that can lead to surface acting, I answer the call by Grandey and Melloy

(2017: 413) to “to look more closely at specific emotional-eliciting events that may evoke ER with others and consider more discrete emotions.” Work intrusions are increasingly prevalent in

86 the workplace; indeed Wajcman and Rose (2011) noted that employees face an average of 22 external interruptions per day. In light of this, my findings assume greater importance in that they indicate that experiencing emotional labor and engaging in emotion regulation via surface acting may be a fairly common and widespread occurrence in daily work lives of not just customer focused employees but rather all employees.

Although not tested in this study, surface acting can also be another alternate mechanism to the predominantly cognitive explanations for the impact of work intrusions on negative employee outcomes (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Dodhia & Dismukes, 2009; Perlow, 1999).

Specifically, surface acting is an act of self-control as it requires the hiding of naturally occurring emotions and putting on fake emotional displays (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003). As such, based on the self-regulatory theory of ego-depletion (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,

1998), researchers have shown that it consumes one’s limited self-regulatory resources, which can be depleting for the employee and lead to negative outcomes such as exhaustion and interpersonal harming (Deng, Walter, Lam, & Zhao, 2017; Trougakos, Beal, Cheng, Hideg, &

Zweig, 2015). Thus, building on my finding that daily work intrusions can be sites of surface acting, future researchers can examine whether as the number of work intrusions increases, the demand for surface acting takes a toll on the interrupted employees’ self-regulatory resources and leads to negative outcomes.

Another interesting point to note is that alternate task goal progress had a negative main effect on annoyance. This implies that what happens on other tasks during a work intrusion also affects the experience of the interrupted employees (Ashford & Northcraft, 2003), with perceptions of goal progress on these tasks reducing the annoyance at being interrupted. This lends support to the idea that in order to get a complete view of a work intrusion, researchers need to adopt a multi-goal perspective that focuses on both the interrupted and the alternate/

87 interrupting tasks (Hunter et al., in press). This notion again has important implications for future experimental and field research on work intrusions because performance on these other tasks has rarely been considered by intrusion scholars. Indeed, most of prior experimental research has used interrupting tasks as design elements and focused on outcomes related to the interrupted task such as task resumption and completion time (e.g., Cades, Werner, Boehm-Davis, &

Arshad, 2010; Foroughi, Werner, Nelson, & Boehm-Davis, 2014; Monk & Kidd, 2008; Zijlstra et al., 1999). However, in light of the main effect of alternate task goal progress on annoyance, it is important for experimental researchers to account for what happens on these alternate tasks and how it affects the participant’s experience of the work intrusion (Leroy & Schmidt, 2016).

Similarly, most field studies also focus only on the effect of interruption of the ongoing task, without accounting for what happens on the interrupting task (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013;

Foroughi et al., 2014; Pachler et al., 2018; Parke et al., 2018). My findings suggest that this practice may result only in a partial understanding of the factors that influence the employee during a work intrusion and that the performance on the interrupting/alternate task is also an important influence on the experience of the interrupted employee.

Overall, the significant relationships in my model have several key implications for research on work intrusions and emotions. But along with that the unpacking of the results that were not significant and exploring the possible causes for the lack of support for these relationships also leads to interesting theoretical implications. The most important area that lacked support in my study was the relationship between the interrupted task goal progress and the two discrete emotions. Although the estimates of these relationships were in the expected direction, they were not significant. An extension of this lack of relationship was that while the main effects of the three moderators of these relationships were significant, their interaction effects with interrupted task goal progress on the two emotions were not. There are potential

88 theoretical and empirical reasons that could explain this pattern and exploring them helps me highlight possible implications for self-regulation theory and the research on work intrusions.

One possible reason for the lack of support for this relationship could be that in case of work intrusions interrupted employees may be more sensitive to the anticipated rather than the actual impact of the intrusion on the interrupted task’s goal progress. What this means is that due to the unexpected nature of a work intrusion (Brixey et al., 2007), at its onset, interrupted employees may not know how it will play out and affect their ongoing task. Thus, to reduce this uncertainty, they may try to mentally appraise and anticipate how the intrusion is likely to progress and affect their task, even as they transition to address it (Leroy & Glomb, 2018). As such, this initial appraisal of the anticipated flow and impact of the work intrusion, made at its onset, could be a more influential driver of the emotional reaction to being interrupted. However, since I administered the scale for interrupted task goal progress after the intrusion and asked employees about the extent to which the work intrusion affected goal progress on the interrupted task, it measured the interrupted employee’s overall assessment of the impact the work intrusion on the interrupted task after its occurrence and not the impact that they anticipated at its onset.

Hence, I was not able to test the above described possibility using my data.

But if the above is indeed the case here, then it suggests that due to their inherent unexpectedness that forces employees to switch tasks and rely heavily on the appraisal of anticipated impact on the interrupted task’s progress, work intrusions may be qualitatively different from other multi-goal contexts where employees have a choice of switching between tasks (e.g., Louro, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2007; Schmidt & DeShon, 2007). Prior scholars studying multi-goal contexts have typically examined how employees manage multiple goals in situations where they are aware of their goal progress, can assess how their actions will influence future goal progress, and have the choice of switching between tasks to manage their goal

89 progress on these tasks (e.g., Louro et al., 2007; Schmidt & DeShon, 2007). In case of work intrusions, however, the last two conditions in the previous sentence may not be prevalent due to their unexpected nature. Thus, the experience of being interrupted may differ in how it affects employees and their self-regulation than other multitasking contexts. Future multi-goal researchers can focus on unpacking these differences and their impact on employee outcomes.

Apart from above, it is also possible that employees differed in their ‘readiness’ to be interrupted when they encountered the intrusion. Such ‘readiness’ for a work intrusion has not been explored before but research does suggest that the level of involvement of individuals in ongoing task may vary across tasks and across time due to which they may be more ready to face an intrusion at certain times than at other times (Leroy, 2009). For instance, if an employee is highly engrossed in a task, or is in the middle of a very complex procedure that they may need to start from the beginning if interrupted, then it is likely that they may not be too inclined to engage with the interrupter, as opposed to when they are working on a task that is simple or does not need their attention much (Fisher, 1998). Such differences in the possible readiness or availability of employees to work intrusions can also be another reason that can cause differences in emotional reactions to work intrusions. Indeed, it is likely that employees respond with more negative and less positive emotions on being interrupted when they are less ready for it.

While I checked for this possibility to some extent by using daily workload as a control variable in my post hoc analysis, the measure of daily work load was for the workload over the entire day and not necessarily reflective of their workload or readiness for an intrusion when it occurred. Thus, exploring ‘readiness’ for a work intrusion presents another useful avenue for future researchers to unpack. For instance, scholars can examine the factors that make employees more or less ready to face a work intrusion. They can also examine how employees’ responses differ based on their readiness to engage with an intrusion.

An additional possibility is that the tendency of people for being prepared for or dealing with a work intrusion may differ based on their job requirements. For instance, certain jobs such as those of nurses or software engineers (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Perlow, 1999) may require employees to handle a lot of daily work intrusions as opposed to other jobs where employees work largely on their own and face less work intrusions. It would be interesting to examine whether employees in jobs with high work intrusions tend to get used to handling intrusions or develop standardized responses to intrusions which can help them deal with intrusions better and faster than employees in jobs with less frequent work intrusions. Although not explored explicitly in the intrusions literature, other research areas do show that employees can proactively develop strategies for dealing with recurring events. For example, employees in jobs with high emotional labor requirements can develop ‘scripts’ for responding to situations demanding emotion regulation (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003). Thus, future intrusion scholars can focus on unpacking these dynamics related to recurring work intrusions in greater detail

There can also be empirical reasons for the lack of this finding. Since I focused on work intrusions in the first half of the day, it is possible that employees may have been less sensitive to the effects on goal progress of the interrupted task, in that they had the remaining day to work on those tasks. It would be interesting to observe if the same pattern of results are observed for work intrusions that occur toward the end of the day. Additionally, while I adopted an episodic approach to bring out the unique elements of a work intrusion, it could also have contributed to the lack of a significant relationship between the interrupted task goal progress and discrete emotions. It is possible that the impact on the goal progress of an interrupted task may be less severe during a single work intrusion episode than the impact on its goal progress due to multiple work intrusions in aggregate (Baethge et al., 2015).

If this is indeed the case, then combined with the significant relationships found for the social interaction of the work intrusion in this study, it suggests that maybe at the episode level social interaction with the interrupter matters more than the impact on one’s work task. Since prior research has linked the aggregated effect of multiple work intrusions on work tasks to affective outcomes (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Zohar et al., 2003), it is possible that as the number of intrusions increases, the accumulated impact on work tasks assumes greater importance, but in case of a single intrusion episode the social interaction with the interrupter is more influential in shaping employee experience. This possibility is in line with the theoretical claim that the qualitative experience of a single work intrusion may be different from that of multiple work intrusions in aggregate (Baethge et al., 2015).

With regard to the two moderators of the link between social interaction and emotions, both the interaction effects were not significant. One possible reason for why perceived interrupter guilt did not have either a main or a moderating effect could be that guilt is often a result of moral transgressions that harm other individuals (Bohns & Flynn, 2013). While daily work intrusions may disrupt the workflow of the interrupted individuals, it is possible that they may not be comparable to the more intense ‘moral’ transgressions often associated with guilt

(Tangney et al., 2007). As such, it is possible that the employees do not hold the interrupter to very high standards and thus may not be very sensitive to perceived expressions of guilt.

Regarding the lack of support for the cross-level moderation by trait need to belong, while individuals differ in their need to belong, Baumeister and Leary (2000) also suggest that people may be more sensitive about cues of belongingness from coworkers/peers than from their loved ones. The reason is that cues of belongingness from coworkers/peers are more ambiguous and at the same time vital for employee success in the workplace (Ozcelik, 2013). As such, it is

92 possible that workplaces represent ‘strong situations,’ where people are generally attuned to the belongingness conveyed by others, irrespective of their trait level of belongingness.

Lastly, I also did not find support for the relationship between the two emotions and end of the day measures of work effort and job performance. My hypotheses here were consistent with the appraisal theory of emotion (Frijda et al., 1989; Lazarus, 1991a), and the underlying assumption was that the action tendencies of the two emotions will primarily influence employee work effort and performance via a change in their work behaviors. However, it is possible that employees responded also by changing their daily goals (Ilies & Judge, 2005), which would give the impression that they maintained their level of effort and performance, in self-reports. One possible way of checking for this possibility in future research would be to collect the ratings of effort and performance from sources other than the employee. Additionally, it is also possible that even after controlling for intrusions in the second half of the day, other intervening events may have influenced employee work effort and job performance. Overall, the non-significant results notwithstanding, this study paints a complex picture of a work intrusion episode and its outcomes and in the process contributes to the literature on work intrusions and emotions.

Practical Implications

My results call into question the traditional view of intrusions as workplace stressors and the widely held belief that an elimination of all work intrusions is beneficial (Baethge & Rigotti,

2013; Lin et al., 2013; Pachler et al., 2018; Perlow, 1999). First, it is important for managers to realize that work intrusions also have a social component along with their implications for employee’s work tasks. Indeed, due to the social interaction between the interrupted individuals and the interrupter, work intrusions are sites for fluctuations of employees’ need to belong. This, in turn, can have emotional consequences for employees that drive subsequent interpersonal behaviors. The finding that pleasantness of social interaction during work intrusions fostered

93 happiness and was also related positively to job satisfaction via lowered annoyance, suggests that work intrusions can also have restorative effects for employee wellbeing. Additionally, to the extent that work intrusions foster interpersonal citizenship, they are likely to be beneficial for the relationship between the interrupted employee and the interrupter. Thus, blindly reducing all work intrusions may, in fact, have negative consequences for interrupted employees.

The significant main effect of interpersonal affect on the two emotions, suggests that the relational dynamics between the interrupter and interrupted employees can influence the subjective experience of being interrupted. In other words, employees may be affected differently by interruptions from different people, based on the relationship they have with the interrupter, even if other aspects of the intrusion are the same. Since interpersonal affect was related positively to happiness and negatively to annoyance experienced during an intrusion a practical takeaway is that managers can focus on fostering strong interpersonal relationships and camaraderie in their teams, which can reduce the negative emotional experience of being interrupted in one’s work, while facilitating positive experiences.

The significant main effect of interrupted task urgency on the two emotions also has key practical implications. Specifically, urgency of the interrupted task at the time it was interrupted was positively related to annoyance and negatively related to happiness. This suggests that interruption of urgent tasks will tend to have pronounced negative implications on employees. In such cases, employees may get annoyed at the interrupter and may need to engage in surface acting, which can take a toll on them. In contrast, non-urgent work intrusions may not lead to such negative consequences, and can also lead to positive effects to the extent that they foster happiness. As a result, implementation of a technologically based system that is able to detect the level of urgency of the employee’s ongoing work and prevents interruption of highly urgent tasks can help reduce the negative effects of work intrusions substantially.

The notion that work intrusions are sites where multiple employee goals are affected simultaneously also has practical usefulness. Indeed, alternate task goal progress was negatively related to annoyance. One implication for managers based on this finding is that it might help them prevent negative reactions to work intrusions, if they foster a multi-goal outlook among the employees. Such an outlook will sensitize employees to the value of a work intrusion via its contribution to the interrupting task and can alleviate, to some extent, the negative reactions to hampered goal progress on the interrupted task. Overall, the results of the study indicate that managers need to be more careful and nuanced in addressing work intrusions as compared to the traditional practical advice of eliminating or reducing all work intrusions.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the crucial implications of my study, these findings should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of the study. First, an important limitation of the study is that all data were self-reported by employees. While self-report measures have been widely used for the subjective assessment of the variables that I study here (e.g., Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Hunter et al., in press; Lin et al., 2013; Parke et al., 2018; Sonnentag et al., 2018), they are subject to recall and memory biases and raise concern about common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). I took several steps to reduce this concern. First, I included lagged levels of my mediators and outcomes as controls, which helped control the previous level of these variables and model change (Beal, 2015). Second, group mean centering within individual variables removed between person confounds such as social desirability, response tendencies and trait affectivity (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Third, I temporally separated the measurement of the end of day outcomes, and the predictors and mediators (Gabriel et al., 2018). These steps helped reduce the possibility of common method variance for the end of the day outcomes.

However, my event level outcomes (surface acting and event level citizenship behavior) from the model on interpersonal outcomes (Figure 2) were measured concurrently with my predictors and mediators, due to which it becomes difficult to determine their causal ordering.

Further, while this design was necessitated due to my interest in momentary interpersonal outcomes and such concurrent measurement has been used in prior research on work intrusions and emotions (e.g., Butts, Becker, & Boswell, 2015; Leroy & Glomb, 2018; Rodell & Judge,

2009; Sonnentag et al., 2018), it is susceptible to common method bias since the predictors, mediators, moderators and the event level outcomes in Figure 2 were all measured together at

Time 1. To address these concerns, I followed the procedural steps taken by Leroy and Glomb

(2018) in their event level study on work intrusions to reduce common method concerns. First, I focused on the most recent work intrusion and asked participants to describe it before answering the survey questions to reduce recall bias. Second, the predictor and criterion measurements were separated and not asked in the order of the hypothesized model relationships.

I also took steps to statistically probe common method variance by utilizing the single common latent factor method (Podsakoff et al., 2003). For this, I again conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis of the main variables in the model of interpersonal outcomes

(Figure 2) in which indicators of the model variables loaded on their respective latent factor.

Further, I added a common latent factor on which indicators of all simultaneously measured

Time 1 variables (i.e. predictors, mediators, moderators and event level outcomes) were loaded

(e.g., Leroy & Glomb, 2018; Markel & Frone, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,

1990). Podsakoff et al. (2003) have noted that such a common latent factor represents the shared method variance. The fit of this model, however, was not too good (2 = 4691.741, df = 1361,

CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMRwithin = 0.05, SRMRbetween = 0.07), and, importantly, none of the factor loadings of the indicators on the common method factor were significant (e.g., Conger,

Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Markel & Frone, 1998). Taken together with the fact that not all substantive relationships between simultaneously measured variables were significant (Conger et al., 2000), it is possible that common method bias may not be widely prevalent in this case.

However, given the concurrent measurement of the event level constructs the causal ordering of the event level paths needs to be interpreted with caution.

Second, as I have elaborated in the theoretical implications section, it is possible that in case of work intrusions, the appraisal of the anticipated impact of the intrusion on the ongoing task is a strong driver of the emotional experience of the interrupted employee. Because I did not measure this variable, I was not able to test this possibility in my study. However, it presents an important opportunity for future intrusion researchers to explore this possibility in detail and expand our understanding of the experience of the interrupted individual. Additionally, as indicated in the same section, scholars can also examine and compare whether intrusion episodes in the second half of the day elicit similar responses to those occurring in the first half of the day.

Further, while none of my moderators worked, it is possible that there are other variables that were not accounted for in the model that influence the hypothesized relationships. For instance, people differ in the propensity to do multiple activities simultaneously, which is indexed by trait polychronicity (Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992). People high in polychronicity are comfortable doing multiple activities simultaneously, and thus it is possible that they might be less sensitive to the negative impact of the work intrusion on their work tasks.

Similarly, Zide, Mills, Shahani-Denning, and Sweetapple (2017) have shown that people differ in their resilience to work intrusions, in that some can recover quicker than others. As such people high in work interruption resiliency can also be less affected by the negative impact of a work intrusion on their tasks. Future researchers could explore these and other individual level variables that can act as boundary conditions for the outcomes of work intrusions.

Third, while I focused on work intrusions that are necessarily caused by other people, employees also frequently experience work interruptions by other sources. For instance, machine and equipment failures and process delays are often a cause of work interruptions in process driven industries such as manufacturing and operations (e.g., Andreasson, Lindblom, &

Thorvald, 2017; Cai, Gong, Lu, & Zhong, 2017). It is possible that employees’ appraisals of such interruptions not caused by other people may differ from those of intrusions initiated by people.

Future research can examine and compare the effect of these two sources of work interruptions.

Relatedly, my focus here was only on the interrupted employees. But since interrupters are also an important component of the intrusion, it is also crucial to understand how they are affected by it (Rivera, 2014). In other words, how does a work intrusion affect the interrupter?

My findings show that interrupters can receive different interpersonal behaviors from the interrupted employee, future researchers can examine the impact these behaviors have on the interrupters. Additionally, intrusions often occur at the behest of and in service of the agenda of the interrupter (Gupta et al., 2013; Käser et al., 2013). Whether this agenda is served or not and whether the interrupted employee responds favorably or not can have an effect on the interrupter.

In sum, research on the interrupter is an avenue ripe for future research.

Fourth, because I was mainly focused on the goal progress and social interactional quality of a work intrusion, I focused on the emotions of annoyance and happiness that are theoretically more aligned with the impact of these two elements of a work intrusion. However, it is possible that the specific content of a work intrusion can trigger other discrete emotions whose actions tendencies may differ from annoyance/happiness, leading to different outcomes. For instance, an intrusion during which a coworker interrupts the employee to mention that they have won the best employee award that the interrupted employee coveted highly could trigger envy in the interrupted employee (e.g., Tai, Narayanan, & McAllister, 2012). Similarly, an intrusion in

98 which a supervisor points out an employee’s mistakes and its negative impact on others can lead to guilt (e.g., Bohns & Flynn, 2013). Future researchers can expand further on these possibilities.

CONCLUSION

Work intrusions are common in today’s workplaces and wield substantial influence on employee’s daily experiences. Thus, there is a need to understand how different aspects of an intrusion episode affect interrupted employees and their response. By taking an episodic approach that focused on interrupted employee’s subjective experience, this study demonstrated that workplace intrusions can be emotional experiences, with the social interaction between the interrupter and the interrupted employee playing a key role in shaping these emotions. Further, it is also important to account for the impact of the characteristics of both the interrupted and interrupting tasks, as well the relational dynamics between the interrupter and the interrupted employee when studying work intrusions. Scholars should also be aware that work intrusions have not only task-based implications but can also shape interpersonal behavior. Overall, a balanced approach to studying work intrusions is needed in future studies on this topic.

RFERENCES

Addas, S., & Pinsonneault, A. 2018. E-Mail interruptions and individual performance: Is there a

silver lining? Management Information Systems Quarterly, 42: 381-405.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. 2013. Best-practice recommendations for

estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of

Management, 39: 1490-1528.

Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. 2002. Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive

Science, 26: 39-83.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the

workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.

Andreasson, R., Lindblom, J., & Thorvald, P. 2017. Interruptions in the wild: Portraying the

handling of interruptions in manufacturing from a distributed cognition lens. Cognition,

Technology & Work, 19: 85-108.

Arnold, K. A., Connelly, C. E., Walsh, M. M., & Martin Ginis, K. A. 2015. Leadership styles,

emotion regulation, and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20: 481-

490.

Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. 2003. Robbing Peter to pay Paul: Feedback environments and

enacted priorities in response to competing task demands. Human Resource

Management Review, 13: 537-559.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. 1996. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and

content. Psychological Bulletin, 120: 338-375.

Averill, J. R. 1983. Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion.

American Psychologist, 38: 1145-1160.

100

Baethge, A., & Rigotti, T. 2013. Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and

satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental

demands. Work and Stress, 27: 43-63.

Baethge, A., & Rigotti, T. 2015. Three-way interactions among interruptions/multitasking

demands, occupational age, and alertness: A diary study. Work, Aging and Retirement,

1: 393-410.

Baethge, A., Rigotti, T., & Roe, R. A. 2015. Just more of the same, or different? An integrative

theoretical framework for the study of cumulative interruptions at work. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24: 308-323.

Bailey, B. P., & Iqbal, S. T. 2008. Understanding changes in mental workload during execution

of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. Transactions on

Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14: 21-28.

Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. 2006. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects

of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human

Behavior, 22: 685-708.

Barclay, L. J., & Kiefer, T. in press. In the aftermath of unfair events: Understanding the

differential effects of anxiety and anger. Journal of Management.

Baron, R. S. 1986. Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 19: 1-40. New York: Academic Press.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect

effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and

recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11: 142-163.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than

good. Review of general psychology, 5: 323-370.

101

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. 1998. Ego depletion: Is the

active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1252-

1265.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. 1994. Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Psychological Bulletin, 115: 243-267.

Beal, D. J. 2015. ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods

in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 2: 383-407.

Beal, D. J., & Ghandour, L. 2011. Stability, change, and the stability of change in daily

workplace affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 526-546.

Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. 2003. Methods of ecological momentary assessment in

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 440-464.

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. 2005. An episodic process model of

affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1054-1068.

Beck, J. W., Scholer, A. A., & Hughes, J. 2017. Divergent effects of distance versus velocity

disturbances on emotional experiences during goal pursuit. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 102: 1109-1123.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of

covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588-606.

Berg, L. M., Källberg, A. S., Göransson, K. E., Östergren, J., Florin, J., & Ehrenberg, A. 2013.

Interruptions in emergency department work: An observational and interview study. BMJ

Quality and Safety, 22: 656-663.

102

Berkowitz, L. 1990. On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-

neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45: 494-503.

Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. 2004. Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger.

Emotion, 4: 107-130.

Biron, A. D., Lavoie‐Tremblay, M., & Loiselle, C. G. 2009a. Characteristics of work

interruptions during medication administration. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 41:

330-336.

Biron, A. D., Loiselle, C. G., & Lavoie‐Tremblay, M. 2009b. Work interruptions and their

contribution to medication administration errors: An evidence review. Worldviews on

Evidence‐Based Nursing, 6: 70-86.

Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. 2011. The affective shift model of work

engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1246-1257.

Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. 2001. When plans change: Examining how people evaluate timing

changes in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26: 566-585.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. 1992. How many things do you like to do at

once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of Management

Executive, 6: 17-26.

Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. 2013. Guilt by design: Structuring organizations to elicit guilt as an

affective reaction to failure. Organization Science, 24: 1157-1173.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. 2003. Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual

Review of Psychology, 54: 579-616.

Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. 2013. Building positive resources:

Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health. Academy of

Management Journal, 56: 1601-1627.

103

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35: 307-311.

Brixey, J. J., Robinson, D. J., Johnson, C. W., Johnson, T. R., Turley, J. P., & Zhang, J. 2007. A

concept analysis of the phenomenon interruption. Advances in Nursing Science, 30:

E26-E42.

Brondolo, E., Rieppi, R., Erickson, S. A., Bagiella, E., Shapiro, P. A., McKinley, P., & Sloan, R.

P. 2003. Hostility, interpersonal interactions, and ambulatory blood pressure.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 65: 1003-1011.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to

job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 358-368.

Brumby, D. P., Cox, A. L., Back, J., & Gould, S. J. J. 2013. Recovering from an interruption:

Investigating speed− accuracy trade-offs in task resumption behavior. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19: 95-107.

Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. 2015. Hot buttons and time sinks: The effects of

electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work-nonwork conflict.

Academy of Management Journal, 58: 763-788.

Cades, D. M., Davis, D. A. B., Trafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A. 2007. Does the difficulty of an

interruption affect our ability to resume? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

Cades, D. M., Werner, N. E., Boehm-Davis, D. A., & Arshad, Z. 2010. What makes real-world

interruptions disruptive? Evidence from an office setting. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

Cai, X., Gong, J., Lu, Y., & Zhong, S. 2017. Recover overnight? Work interruption and worker

productivity. Management Science, 1: 28-57.

104

Carton, A. M., & Aiello, J. R. 2009. Control and anticipation of social interruptions: Reduced

stress and improved task performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39: 169-

185.

Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. 2009. Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and

implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135: 183-204.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1990. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A

control-process view. Psychological Review, 97: 19-35.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 2001. On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 2013. Self-regulation of action and affect. In K. D. Vohs, & R. F.

Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications

(2nd Ed.): 3-21: Guilford Press.

Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. 2008. When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal

affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 655-684.

Cellier, J. M., & Eyrolle, H. 1992. Interference between switched tasks. Ergonomics, 35: 25-36.

Chong, J., & Siino, R. 2006. Interruptions on software teams: A comparison of paired and solo

programmers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on

Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

Claessens, B. J. C., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. 2010. Things to do today...: A

daily diary study on task completion at work. Applied Psychology, 59: 273-295.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conard, M. A., & Marsh, R. F. 2016. Self-efficacy matters more than interruptions in a

sequential multitasking experiment. Psicológica, 37: 15-34.

105

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. 2000. Charismatic leadership and follower

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 747-767.

Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. 2000. The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-

analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29: 265-281.

Conroy, S., Henle, C. A., Shore, L., & Stelman, S. 2017a. Where there is light, there is dark: A

review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 38: 184-203.

Conroy, S. A., Becker, W. J., & Menges, J. I. 2017b. The meaning of my feelings depends on

who I am: Work-related identifications shape emotion effects in organizations. Academy

of Management Journal, 60: 1071-1093.

Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. 2013. Selective

incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of

Management, 39: 1579-1605.

Couffe, C., & Michael, G. A. 2017. Failures due to interruptions or distractions: A review and a

new framework. American Journal of Psychology, 130: 163-181.

Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. 2004. A diary study of task switching and

interruptions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems.

Dabbish, L., Mark, G., & González, V. M. 2011. Why do I keep interrupting myself?:

Environment, habit and self-interruption. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. 2009. A within-person

approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-

106

counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 1051-1066.

Deng, H., Walter, F., Lam, C. K., & Zhao, H. H. 2017. Spillover effects of emotional labor in

customer service encounters toward coworker harming: A resource depletion perspective.

Personnel Psychology, 70: 469-502.

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., & Richard, E. M. 2003. Antecedents and consequences of emotional display

rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 284-294.

Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. 2006. Are emotional display rules formal

job requirements? Examination of employee and supervisor perceptions. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 273–298.

Dimotakis, N., Scott, B. A., & Koopman, J. 2011. An experience sampling investigation of

workplace interactions, affective states, and employee well‐being. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32: 572-588.

Dodhia, R. M., & Dismukes, R. K. 2009. Interruptions create prospective memory tasks. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 23: 73-89.

Domagalski, T. A., & Steelman, L. A. 2005. The impact of work events and disposition on the

experience and expression of employee anger. Organizational Analysis, 13: 31-52.

Elfenbein, H. A. 2007. Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. The

Academy of Management Annals, 1: 315-386.

Elicker, J. D., Lord, R. G., Ash, S. R., Kohari, N. E., Hruska, B. J., McConnell, N. L., &

Medvedeff, M. E. 2010. Velocity as a predictor of performance satisfaction, mental

focus, and goal revision. Applied Psychology, 59: 495-514.

107

Ellis, H. C., Moore, B. A., Varner, L. J., Ottaway, S. A., & Becker, A. S. 1997. Depressed mood,

task organization, cognitive interference, and memory: Irrelevant thoughts predict recall

performance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12: 453-470.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. 2003. Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R.

Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences: 572–595. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. 2007. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel

models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12: 121-138.

Eyrolle, H., & Cellier, J. M. 2000. The effects of interruptions in work activity: Field and

laboratory results. Applied Ergonomics, 31: 537-543.

Finch, W. H., Bolin, J. E., & Kelley, K. 2017. Multilevel modeling using Mplus. New York:

Chapman and Hall.

Fisher, C. D. 1998. Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two

studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 503-522.

Fisher, C. D. 2000. Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction?

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 185-202.

Fisher, C. D. 2010. Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12:

384-412.

Fletcher, K. A., Potter, S. M., & Telford, B. N. 2018. Stress outcomes of four types of perceived

interruptions. Human Factors, 60: 222-235.

Flynn, F. J. 2003. How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and

frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management

Journal, 46: 539-553.

108

Flynn, F. J. 2005. Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy

of Management Review, 30: 737-750.

Foroughi, C. K., Werner, N. E., Nelson, E. T., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. 2014. Do interruptions

affect quality of work? Human Factors, 56: 1262-1271.

Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2:

300-319.

Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotion in positive psychology: The broaden-and-

build theory of positive emotion. American Psychologist, 56: 218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and

thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19: 313-332.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. 2005. Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human

flourishing. American Psychologist, 60: 678-686.

Frijda, N. H. 1986. The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Frijda, N. H. 1987. Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion,

1: 115-143.

Frijda, N. H. 1993. Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions: 381-404. New York: Guildford Press.

Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. 1989. Relations among emotion, appraisal, and

emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 212-228.

Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. 1994. The social roles and functions of emotions. In S. Kitayama,

& H. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence: 51-

87. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

109

Gabriel, A. S., & Diefendorff, J. M. 2015. Emotional labor dynamics: A momentary approach.

Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1804-1825.

Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., &

Butts, M. M. 2018. Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and

considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods: 1-38.

Gibson, D. E., & Callister, R. R. 2010. Anger in organizations: Review and integration. Journal

of Management, 36: 66-93.

Glomb, T. M. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data

from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 20-36.

González-Romá, V., & Hernández, A. 2017. Multilevel modeling: Research-based lessons for

substantive researchers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 4: 183-210.

González, V. M., & Mark, G. 2004. Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing

multiple working spheres. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Gooty, J., Gavin, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2009. Emotions research in OB: The challenges that

lie ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 833-838.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of

leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.

Grandey, A. A. 2000. Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize

emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 95-110.

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., & Gabriel, A. S. 2015. Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from

here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2:

323–349.

Grandey, A. A., & Melloy, R. C. 2017. The state of the heart: Emotional labor as emotion

regulation reviewed and revised. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22: 407-

422.

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., Semmer, N., Faso, L. L., Gut, S., Kälin, W., & Elfering, A. 2003. Working

conditions, well-being, and job-related attitudes among call centre agents. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12: 341-365.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-

family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31: 72-92.

Gupta, A., Li, H., & Sharda, R. 2013. Should I send this message? Understanding the impact of

interruptions, social hierarchy and perceived task complexity on user performance and

perceived workload. Decision Support Systems, 55: 135-145.

Harr, R., & Kaptelinin, V. 2007. Unpacking the social dimension of external interruptions.

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Supporting Group

Work.

111

Harr, R., & Kaptelinin, V. 2012. Interrupting or not: exploring the effect of social context on

interrupters' decision making. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Nordic

Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design.

Healey, A., Sevdalis, N., & Vincent, C. 2006. Measuring intra-operative interference from

distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics, 49: 589-604.

Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:

Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6: 1-55.

Hudson, J. M., Christensen, J., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. 2002. I'd be overwhelmed, but

it's just one more thing to do: Availability and interruption in research management.

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems.

Hunter, E. M., Clark, M. A., & Carlson, D. S. in press. Violating work-family boundaries:

Reactions to interruptions at work and home. Journal of Management.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. 2004. An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its

relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction.

European journal of work and organizational psychology, 13: 367-389.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. 2005. Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 453-467.

112

Ilies, R., Keeney, J., & Scott, B. A. 2011. Work–family interpersonal capitalization: Sharing

positive work events at home. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 114: 115-126.

Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between

job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management

Journal, 44: 1039-1050.

Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. 1997. Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An

examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 775-790.

Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. 2003. Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in

organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 28: 494-507.

Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Lord, R. G. 2006. Moving from cognition to behavior: What the

research says. Psychological Bulletin, 132: 381-415.

Johnson, R. E., Howe, M., & Chang, C. H. 2012. The importance of velocity, or why speed may

matter more than distance. Organizational Psychology Review, 3: 62-85.

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. 1972. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the

causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones (Ed.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior:

79-84. Morristown, N.J: General Learning Press.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test

of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 126-138.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational

stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

113

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

dispositonal affectivity and emotional labor. Personnel Psychology, 66: 47-90.

Käser, P. A. W., Fischbacher, U., & König, C. J. 2013. Helping and quiet hours: Interruption‐

free time spans can harm performance. Applied Psychology, 62: 286-307.

Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D. G. 1995. Anger disorders: Basic science and practice issues.

Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 18: 173-205.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. 1999. Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition

& Emotion, 13: 505-521.

Kiffin-Petersen, S., Murphy, S. A., & Soutar, G. 2012. The problem-solving service worker:

Appraisal mechanisms and positive affective experiences during customer interactions.

Human Relations, 65: 1179-1206.

Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. 2014. Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work

group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 619-634.

Kline, R. B. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:

Guilford publications.

Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. 2016. Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A

daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management

Journal, 59: 414-435.

Koopmann, J., Lanaj, K., Bono, J., & Campana, K. 2016. Daily shifts in regulatory focus: The

influence of work events and implications for employee well‐being. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 37: 1293-1316.

LaHuis, D. M., Hartman, M. J., Hakoyama, S., & Clark, P. C. 2014. Explained variance

measures for multilevel models. Organizational Research Methods, 17: 433-451.

114

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Wang, M. 2016. When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily

costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 1097-1110.

Lanaj, K., Kim, P. H., Koopman, J., & Matta, F. K. 2018. Daily mistrust: A resource perspective

and its implications for work and home. Personnel Psychology, 71: 545-570.

Lawrence, J. W., Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 2002. Velocity toward goal attainment in

immediate experience as a determinant of affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

32: 788-802.

Lazarus, R. S. 1991a. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. 1991b. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46: 819-834.

Lazarus, R. S. 2001. Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T.

Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research: 37-67.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Leary, M. R. 2012. Sociometer theory. In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, Vol. 2: 160-179. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer

theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32: 1-62.

Leary, M. R., & Guadagno, J. 2004. The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of

interpersonal behavior. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-

regulation: Research, theory, and applications: 373-391. New York: Guilford Press.

Leary, M. R., & Kelly, K. M. 2009. Belonging motivation. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),

Handbook of individual differences in social behavior: 400-409. New York: Oxford

University Press.

115

Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. 2013. Construct validity of the

need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 95: 610-624.

Leary, M. R., Terdal, S. K., Tambor, E. S., & Downs, D. L. 1995. Self-Esteem as an

interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68: 518-530.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815-852.

Lee, H. W., Bradburn, J., Johnson, R. E., Lin, S.-H. J., & Chang, C. H. D. 2019. The benefits of

receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive helping at

work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104: 197-213.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The

role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 131-142.

Leroy, S. 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when

switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 109: 168-181.

Leroy, S., & Glomb, T. M. 2018. Tasks interrupted: How anticipating time pressure on

resumption of an interrupted task causes attention residue and low performance on

interrupting tasks and how a “ready-to-resume” plan mitigates the effects. Organization

Science, 29: 380-397.

Leroy, S., & Schmidt, A. M. 2016. The effect of regulatory focus on attention residue and

performance during interruptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 137: 218-235.

116

Lilius, J. M. 2012. Recovery at work: Understanding the restorative side of “depleting” client

interactions. Academy of Management Review, 37: 569-588.

Lin, B. C., Kain, J. M., & Fritz, C. 2013. Don’t interrupt me! An examination of the relationship

between intrusions at work and employee strain. International Journal of Stress

Management, 20: 77-94.

Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. 2010. Self-regulation at work.

Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 543-568.

Louro, M. J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. 2007. Dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 174-193.

Lu, J. G., Akinola, M., & Mason, M. F. 2017. “Switching On” creativity: Task switching can

increase creativity by reducing cognitive fixation. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 139: 63-75.

Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. 1999.

A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial

validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample.

Personality and Individual differences, 27: 405-416.

Mansi, G., & Levy, Y. 2013. Do instant messaging interruptions help or hinder knowledge

workers’ task performance? International Journal of Information Management, 33:

591-596.

Mark, G. 2015. Multitasking in the digital age. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.

Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. 2005. No task left behind?: Examining the nature of

fragmented work. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems.

117

Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. 2008. The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress.

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems.

Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. 1998. Job characteristics, work–school conflict, and school

outcomes among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83: 277.

Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. 2015. Folding under pressure

or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team

temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1313-1333.

McCurdie, T., Sanderson, P., & Aitken, L. M. 2017. Traditions of research into interruptions in

healthcare: A conceptual review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 66: 23-36.

Mellor, D., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y., & Cummins, R. 2008. Need for belonging,

relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual

Differences, 45: 213-218.

Mignonac, K., & Herrbach, O. 2004. Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes: An

empirical study of managers' emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 221-

240.

Minbashian, A., Wood, R. E., & Beckmann, N. 2010. Task-contingent conscientiousness as a

unit of personality at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 793-806.

Miner, A., Glomb, T., & Hulin, C. 2005. Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 171-193.

Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. 2010. State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: A

within-persons approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

112: 43-57.

118

Mitchell, T. R., Harman, W. S., Lee, T. W., & Lee, D. Y. 2008. Self-regulation and multiple

deadline goals. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past,

present, and future: 197-232. New York: Routledge.

Monk, C. A., & Kidd, D. G. 2008. The effects of brief interruptions on task resumption. Paper

presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

Meeting.

Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. 2008. The effect of interruption duration and

demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,

14: 299-313.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing

and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1321-1339.

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. 2000. Interaction and outeraction: Instant

messaging in action. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Computer

Supported Cooperative Work.

Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. 2017. Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal

pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4:

401-423.

Nees, M. A., & Fortna, A. 2015. A comparison of human versus virtual interruptions.

Ergonomics, 58: 852-856.

O'Conaill, B., & Frohlich, D. 1995. Timespace in the workplace: Dealing with interruptions.

Paper presented at the Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1987. Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition

and Emotion, 1: 29-50.

119

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. 2010. Diary studies in organizational research.

Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9: 79-93.

Ozcelik, H. 2013. An empirical analysis of surface acting in intra‐organizational relationships.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34: 291-309.

Pachler, D., Kuonath, A., Specht, J., Kennecke, S., Agthe, M., & Frey, D. 2018. Workflow

interruptions and employee work outcomes: The moderating role of polychronicity.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23: 417-427.

Parke, M. R., Weinhardt, J. M., Brodsky, A., Tangirala, S., & DeVoe, S. E. 2018. When daily

planning improves employee performance: The importance of planning type,

engagement, and interruptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103: 300–312.

Perlow, L., & Weeks, J. 2002. Who's helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 345-361.

Perlow, L. A. 1999. The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 44: 57-81.

Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. 2004. Getting a cue: The need to belong and

enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30:

1095-1107.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.

120

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513-563.

Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. 2018. The short-lived benefits of abusive

supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement.

Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1951-1975.

Rego, A., & Souto, S. 2009. Does the need to belong moderate the relationship between

perceptions of spirit of camaraderie and employees' happiness? Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 14: 148-164.

Reichl, C., Schneider, J. F., & Spinath, F. M. 2013. Relation of self-talk frequency to loneliness,

need to belong, and health in German adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 54:

241-245.

Reis, H. T., & Wheeler, L. 1991. Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction

Record. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24:

269-318. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rivera, A. J. 2014. A socio-technical systems approach to studying interruptions: Understanding

the interrupter's perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 45: 747-756.

Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. 1994. A closer look at interpersonal affect as a distinct influence

on cognitive processing in performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:

341-353.

Robert, C., & Wilbanks, J. E. 2012. The wheel model of humor: Humor events and affect in

organizations. Human Relations, 65: 1071-1099.

121

Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. 2009. Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating

role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and

counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1438-1451.

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. 2001. Appraisal theory. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T.

Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research: 3-19.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. 1994. Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals

differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 206-

221.

Rosen, C. C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A. S., & Johnson, R. E. 2016. Who strikes back? A daily

investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 101: 1620-1634.

Rosen, C. C., Simon, L. S., Gajendran, R. S., Johnson, R. E., Lee, H. W., & Lin, S.-H. J. 2018.

Boxed in by your inbox: Implications of daily e-mail demands for managers’ leadership

behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104: 19-33.

Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution

process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: 173-220.

New York: Academic Press.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family

roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 655-684.

Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. 2006. When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional

injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91: 971-978.

122

Russell, E., Woods, S. A., & Banks, A. P. 2017. Examining conscientiousness as a key resource

in resisting email interruptions: Implications for volatile resources and goal achievement.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90: 407-435.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. 2014a. Is efficiency overrated? Minimal social interactions

lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5:

437-442.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. 2014b. Social interactions and well-being: The surprising

power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40: 910-922.

Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. 2007. What to do? The effects of discrepancies, incentives, and

time on dynamic goal prioritization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 928-941.

Schmidt, A. M., Dolis, C. M., & Tolli, A. P. 2009. A matter of time: individual differences,

contextual dynamics, and goal progress effects on multiple-goal self-regulation. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 94: 692-709.

Schwab, D. P. 2013. Research methods for organizational studies (2nd Ed.). New York:

Psychology Press.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. 2003. Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry,

14: 296-303.

Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., & Welpe, I. M. 2017. Sparking Anger and Anxiety: Why Intense

Leader Anger Displays Trigger Both More Deviance and Higher Work Effort in

Followers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33: 1-17.

Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. 2011. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect,

work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 116-136.

123

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. 2010. A daily investigation of the

role of manager empathy on employee well-being. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 113: 127-140.

Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 118-135.

Seo, M. G., & Ilies, R. 2009. The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic motivational

self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109: 120-

133.

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'connor, C. 1987. Emotion knowledge: Further

exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:

1061-1086.

Shumski Thomas, J., Olien, J. L., Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., & Kello, J. E. 2018. Faking it

for the higher-ups: Status and surface acting in workplace meetings. Group &

Organization Management, 43: 72-100.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. 1985. Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 813.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. 1987. Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking an

exam. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 475-488.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. 1994. Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological

Methods & Research, 22: 342-363.

Sonnentag, S., Reinecke, L., Mata, J., & Vorderer, P. 2018. Feeling interrupted—Being

responsive: How online messages relate to affect at work. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 39: 369-383.

124

Sonnentag, S., & Starzyk, A. 2015. Perceived prosocial impact, perceived situational constraints,

and proactive work behavior: Looking at two distinct affective pathways. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 36: 806-824.

Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. 1999. The influence of task interruption on individual

decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30: 337-360.

Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. 2003. The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and

information presentation on computer‐supported decision‐making performance. Decision

Sciences, 34: 771-797.

Spira, J. B., & Feintuch, J. B. 2005. The cost of not paying attention: How interruptions impact

knowledge worker productivity. New York, NY.

Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. E. 2011. High quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, &

G. M. Spreit (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship: 385-

399. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stinson, D. A., Cameron, J. J., & Huang, E. T. 2015. Your sociometer is telling you something:

How the self-esteem system functions to resolve important interpersonal dilemmas. In V.

Zeigler-Hill, L. L. M. Welling, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on

Social Psychology: 137-147: Springer.

Stinson, D. A., Logel, C., Holmes, J. G., Wood, J. V., Forest, A. L., Gaucher, D., Fitzsimons, G.

M., & Kath, J. 2010. The regulatory function of self-esteem: Testing the epistemic and

acceptance signaling systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 993-

1013.

Stone, E. F., & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1984. Some issues associated with the use of moderated

regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 195-213.

125

Sykes, E. R. 2011. Interruptions in the workplace: A case study to reduce their effects.

International Journal of Information Management, 31: 385-394.

Szóstek, A. M., & Markopoulos, P. 2006. Factors defining face-to-face interruptions in the

office environment. Paper presented at the CHI'06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors

in Computing Systems.

Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & McAllister, D. J. 2012. Envy as pain: Rethinking the nature of envy

and its implications for employees and organizations. Academy of Management Review,

37: 107-129.

Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. 1996. Are shame, guilt, and

embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70:

1256-1269.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. 2007. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual

Review of Psychology, 58: 345-372.

Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. 1975. Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 439-445.

Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. 1999. Rushed, unhappy, and drained: an

experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control, mood,

and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of occupational health

psychology, 4: 37-54.

Thompson, E. R. 2008. Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-

markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45: 542-548.

Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. 2007. Managing anger and annoyance in organizations in China: The role

of constructive controversy. Group & Organization Management, 32: 260-289.

126

Tofighi, D., West, S. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. 2013. Multilevel mediation analysis: The effects

of omitted variables in the 1–1–1 model. British Journal of Mathematical and

Statistical Psychology, 66: 290-307.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. 2006. Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a

theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1339-1351.

Trafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A. 2007. Task interruptions. In D. A. Boehm-Davis (Ed.), Reviews of

human factors and ergonomics (vol. 3): 111-126. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors

and Ergonomics Society.

Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. 2015. Too drained to help: A

resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 100: 227-236.

Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. J. 2014. Lunch breaks unpacked: The role

of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Management

Journal, 57: 405-421.

Tsui, A. S., & Barry, B. 1986. Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management

Journal, 29: 586-599.

Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. 1984. A role set analysis of gender differences in performance,

affective relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers. Academy of

Management Journal, 27: 619-635.

Unsworth, K., Yeo, G., & Beck, J. 2014. Multiple goals: A review and derivation of general

principles. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 1064-1078.

Uy, M. A., Lin, K. J., & Ilies, R. 2017. Is it better to give or receive? The role of help in

buffering the depleting effects of surface acting. Academy of Management Journal, 60:

1442-1461.

127

Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Vliert, E. 2001. Patterns of interdependence in work

teams: A two‐level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction.

Personnel Psychology, 54: 51-69.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., Van De Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. 2003. Informational dissimilarity and

organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team

identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 715-727. van Kleef, G. A. 2016. The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory

of emotions as social information. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press. van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. 2006. Supplication and appeasement

in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt, and

regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 124-142.

Varma, A., Denisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. 1996. Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal:

A field study. Personnel Psychology, 49: 341-360.

Varma, A., & Pichler, S. 2007. Interpersonal affect: Does it really bias performance appraisals?

Journal of Labor Research, 28: 397-412.

Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. 1998. A time-series diary study of mood and social interaction.

Motivation and Emotion, 22: 255-275.

Wajcman, J., & Rose, E. 2011. Constant connectivity: Rethinking interruptions at work.

Organization Studies, 32: 941-961.

Wanberg, C. R., Zhu, J., & Van Hooft, E. A. J. 2010. The job search grind: Perceived progress,

self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort. Academy of Management Journal,

53: 788-807.

128

Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. 2011. Daily customer mistreatment and employee

sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of

Management Journal, 54: 312-334.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-

subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75: 487-499.

Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. 1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A

longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 232-260.

Weigl, M., Müller, A., Vincent, C., Angerer, P., & Sevdalis, N. 2012. The association of

workflow interruptions and hospital doctors' workload: A prospective observational

study. BMJ Quality and Safety, 21: 399-407.

Weiss, H. M. 2002. Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective

experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 173-194.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the

structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 18: 1-74.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. 1999. Effects of justice conditions on discrete

emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 786-794.

West, S. G., & Hepworth, J. T. 1991. Statistical issues in the study of temporal data: Daily

experiences. Journal of Personality, 59: 609-662.

Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management

Review, 14: 490-495.

Wilkes, S. M., Barber, L. K., & Rogers, A. P. 2018. Development and validation of the

Workplace Interruptions Measure. Stress and Health, 34: 102–114.

129

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,

17: 601-617.

Wubben, M. J. J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. 2009. When and how communicated guilt

affects contributions in public good dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 45: 15-23.

Yanchus, N. J., Eby, L. T., Lance, C. E., & Drollinger, S. 2010. The impact of emotional labor

on work–family outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76: 105-117.

Yue, Y., Wang, K. L., & Groth, M. 2017. Feeling bad and doing good: The effect of customer

mistreatment on service employee's daily display of helping behaviors. Personnel

Psychology, 70: 769-808.

Zide, J. S., Mills, M. J., Shahani-Denning, C., & Sweetapple, C. 2017. Work interruptions

resiliency: Toward an improved understanding of employee efficiency. Journal of

Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4: 39-58.

Zijlstra, F. R. H., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., & Krediet, I. 1999. Temporal factors in mental

work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72: 163-185.

Zohar, D., Tzischinski, O., & Epstein, R. 2003. Effects of energy availability on immediate and

delayed emotional reactions to work events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 1082-

1093.

130

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Summary of Hypotheses

Hypotheses Wording Supported?

Within individuals, a lack of goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to high level of Hypothesis annoyance, which implies a negative relationship between interrupted task goal progress and Not Supported 1 annoyance

Within individuals, the perceived goal progress of an interrupted task is positively related to Hypothesis happiness such that high goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to higher level of Not Supported 2 happiness

Within individuals, unpleasant social interactions during work intrusions will lead to higher Hypothesis level of annoyance, which implies a negative relationship between the pleasantness of a work Supported 3 intrusion’s social interaction and annoyance

Within individuals, the perceived pleasantness of a work intrusion’s social interaction is Hypothesis positively related to happiness such that pleasant social interaction is associated with higher Supported 4 level of happiness Within individuals, interrupted task urgency will moderate:

a) the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance such that low Hypothesis interrupted task goal progress will lead to greater annoyance when interrupted task urgency is 5 high than when it is low Not Supported

a) the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and annoyance such that low Hypothesis interrupted task goal progress will lead to greater annoyance when alternate task goal progress 6 is low than when it is high Not Supported

b) the relationship between interrupted task goal progress and happiness such that high goal progress on the interrupted task will lead to greater happiness when alternate task goal progress is high than when it is low.

Within individuals, interpersonal affect will moderate the relationship between interrupted Hypothesis task goal progress and annoyance such that low goal progress on the interrupted task will lead Not Supported 7 to greater annoyance when employees have low as opposed to high level of interpersonal affect toward the interrupter

Trait need to belong will moderate:

a) the within-individual relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work Hypothesis intrusion and annoyance such that unpleasant interactions will lead to greater annoyance for 8 employees with a high as opposed to a low level of trait need to belong Not Supported

131

Within individuals, perceived interrupter guilt will moderate:

a) the relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and annoyance such that unpleasant interactions will lead to greater annoyance when perceived Hypothesis interrupter guilt is low than when it is high Not Supported 9 b) the relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and happiness such that pleasant interactions will lead to greater happiness when perceived interrupter guilt is high than when it is low

Hypothesis Within individuals, annoyance will be positively related to a) episode level surface acting, and 10a = Supported 10 b) end of the day reports of counterproductive work behavior 10b = Not supported

Within individuals, annoyance will mediate the negative indirect relationship between goal Hypothesis progress on the interrupted task and a) episode level surface acting, b) end of the day report of Not Supported 11 counterproductive

Within individuals, annoyance will mediate the negative indirect relationship between the Hypothesis 12a = Supported pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and a) episode level surface acting and 12 12b = Not supported b) end of the day report of counterproductive work behaviors

13a = Supported Hypothesis Within individuals, happiness will be positively related to a) episodic citizenship behaviors 13b = Not 13 and b) end of the day reports of citizenship behaviors Supported

Within individuals, happiness will mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal Hypothesis progress on the interrupted task and a) episodic citizenship behaviors and b) end of the day Not supported 14 reports of citizenship behaviors

Within individuals, happiness will mediate the positive indirect relationship between the 15a = Supported Hypothesis pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and a) episodic citizenship behavior and 15b = Not 15 b) end of the day reports of citizenship behaviors Supported

Within individuals, annoyance will

a) be negatively related to end of day job satisfaction, 16a = Supported Hypothesis b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and end of 16b = Not supported 16 day job satisfaction 16c = Supported

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and end of day job satisfaction

Within individuals, happiness will

a) be positively related to end of day job satisfaction,

Hypothesis b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between interrupted task goal progress and end of Not supported 17 day job satisfaction, and

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and end of day job satisfaction

132

Within individuals, annoyance will

a) be negatively related to work effort

Hypothesis b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and Not supported 18 work effort

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and work effort

Within individuals, happiness will

a) be positively related to work effort

Hypothesis b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and Not supported 19 work effort

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and work effort

Within individuals, annoyance will

a) be negatively related to job performance

Hypothesis b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and Not supported 20 job performance

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and job performance

Within individuals, happiness will

a) be positively related to job performance

Hypothesis b) mediate the positive indirect relationship between goal progress on the interrupted task and Not supported 21 job performance

c) mediate the positive indirect relationship between the pleasantness of social interaction of a work intrusion and job performance

133

Appendix B – List of Measures

Initial open-ended question

In the workplace, people often interrupt us unexpectedly in the middle of our work tasks. Think of your most recent unexpected interaction with someone else, since arriving at work today morning. Answer the following questions based on that interaction.

• Please replay the most recent unexpected interaction in your mind and describe in a few sentences what happened.

▪ a) How long did it last? (mins) b) How long ago did it occur? (mins)

▪ Was this unexpected interaction: a) Work related b) Non-work-related

Variable (Source) Items of the Measure (R= Reverse scored) Reliability Within Individual (Level 1) Variables How would you say the unexpected interaction affected the task you were working on when it occurred? Interrupted task goal progress 1. I moved forward with the task (Time 1) 2. I made good progress on the task 0.90 3. I was productive on the task (Wanberg et al., 2010) 4. I got a lot less done with the task than I had hoped (R) 5. I hardly made any progress on the task (R) 6. Things did not go well with the task (R)

How would you describe the quality of your social interaction during this Pleasantness of social unexpected interaction? interaction (Time 1) 3 items for pleasantness: 0.92 – Pleasant, Friendly, Agreeable (Brondolo et al., 2003; Dimotakis et al., 2011) 3 items for unpleasantness (Reverse scored): – Uncomfortable, Tense, Confrontational

Annoyance Rate the extent to which you experienced the following during this unexpected (Time 1) interaction: 0.88

(Schwarzmüller et al., – Angry, Annoyed, Irritated 2017)

Happiness Rate the extent to which you experienced the following during this unexpected (Time 1) interaction: 0.91

(Shaver et al., 1987; – Happy, Joyful, Enthusiastic, Eager Weiss et al., 1999)

How would you describe the urgency of the task you were doing when the Interrupted task urgency unexpected interaction occurred? (Time 1) 0.91 1. I was under a lot of pressure to complete that task on time (Maruping et al., 2015) 2. I did not have much time to complete that task 3. The amount of time to complete that task was short

134

Thinking back, how would you say the unexpected interaction impacted tasks other than the one you were doing when it occurred? Alternate task goal progress 1. I was productive on other tasks (Time 1) 2. I made good progress on other tasks 0.93 3. I moved forward with other tasks (Wanberg et al., 2010) 4. Things did not go well with other tasks (R) 5. I got a lot less done with other tasks than I had hoped (R) 6. I hardly made any progress on other tasks (R)

Interpersonal affective Rate these statements about the person with whom you had this interaction: regard (Time 1) 1. I like him/her 0.90 2. I get along well with him/her (Wayne & Ferris, 1990; 3. Working/interacting with him/her is a pleasure Wayne & Liden, 1995) 4. I think he/she is a good friend

Perceived interrupter guilt To what extent do you believe the interaction partner felt guilty about (Time 1) NA interrupting you in the middle of your work task?

(Wubben et al., 2009)

Please rate these statements based on your experience during this interaction: Surface Acting (Time 1) 1. I faked a good mood during the interaction 0.96 2. I put on an act to deal with the other person in an appropriate way (Grandey, 2003; Scott & 3. I pretended to have emotions that I needed to display during the interaction Barnes, 2011) 4. I put on a ‘mask’ to display the emotions needed for the interaction

Thinking back, how did you respond to this person during the interaction? Citizenship behavior (Time 1: Focused on 1. I praised or encouraged him/her interrupter) 0.79 2. I was respectful of his/her needs

(Dalal et al., 2009) 3. I showed genuine concern for him/her 4. I tried to be considerate to him/her

Rate these statements based on your experience since the previous survey:

Citizenship behavior 1. I went out of my way to be nice to other people (Time 2: Generic in 2. I tried to help other people focus) 3. I defended the opinions or suggestions of someone I work with. 0.80

4. I went out of my way to include one or more coworkers within a (Dalal et al., 2009; Koopman et al., 2016) conversation. 5. I tried to be available to other people 6. I spoke highly about one or more coworkers to others.

135

Rate these statements based on your experience since the previous survey:

Counterproductive 1. I behaved in an unpleasant manner toward other people behaviors 2. I tried to harm one or more coworkers at the workplace (Time 2) 0.73 3. I criticized other people's opinion or suggestion

4. I excluded one or more coworkers from a conversation. (Dalal et al., 2009) 5. I tried to avoid interacting with other people 6. I spoke poorly about one or more coworkers to others

Job satisfaction How do you feel right now? (Time 2) 1. I feel fairly satisfied with my present job 0.90 (Ilies, Keeney, & Scott, 2. I feel enthusiastic about my work 2011; Koopman et al., 3. I find real enjoyment in my work 2016) 4. I consider my job rather unpleasant (R) Rate these statements based on your experience since the previous survey:

Work effort 1. I devoted all my energy to getting my work tasks done (Time 2) 2. I worked with intensity 0.93

3. I worked at my full capacity in all of my job duties (Brown & Leigh, 1996) 4. I strived as hard as I could to be successful in my work 5. I really exerted myself to the fullest

Job performance Rate these statements based on your experience since the previous survey: (Time 2) 1. I fulfilled all the responsibilities specified in my job description today 0.91 (Parke et al., 2018; 2. I consistently met the formal performance requirements of my job today Williams & Anderson, 3. I performed tasks that were expected of me today 1991) 4. I adequately completed all of my assigned duties today

Additional Within Individual (Level 1) Variables

Rate the below items based on your experience since arriving at work this Work intrusion morning (for Time 1 Survey) / the previous survey (for Time 2 survey): frequency

(Time 1 and 2) 1. I was interrupted by people seeking information from me Time 1 = 0.79

2. I was interrupted by people seeking my help (Parke et al., 2018) 3. I was interrupted by people who gave or assigned a new task to me Time 2 = 0.83

4. I was interrupted by people who provided me work-related updates or Anchors: 1 = Never to information 5= Constantly 5. I was interrupted by people for non-work related matters (e.g., socializing) Please rate these statements based on your experience during this interaction:

Deep acting 1. I worked hard to feel the emotions that I needed to show during the (Time 1) interaction 0.92 2. I made an effort to feel the emotions that I needed to display during the (Grandey, 2003; Scott & interruption Barnes, 2011) 3. I tried to actually experience the emotions that I had to show during the interaction

136

1. Today, I had to work fast 2. Today, I had too much work to do Daily work load 3. Today, I had to work extra hard to finish my tasks (Time 2) 4. Today I had to work under time pressure 0.90 5. Today, I could work in comfort (R) (Janssen, 2001) 6. Today, I had to deal with a backlog at work 7. Today, I had problems with the pace of work 8. Today, I had problems with the workload Between Individual (Level 2) Variables – Measured in initial enrollment survey

Please indicate the extent to which below statements are applicable to you

1. If other people don’t seem to accept me, I don’t let it bother me (R) 2. I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me. 3. I seldom worry about whether other people care about me (R) Trait need to belong 4. I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need. 0.75 5. I want other people to accept me. (Leary et al., 2013) 6. I do not like being alone. 7. Being apart from my friends for long periods of time does not bother me (R) 8. I have a strong “need to belong.” 9. It bothers me a great deal when I am not included in other people’s plans. 10. My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that others do not accept me.

Between Individual (Level 2) Variables used in Appendices C and D – Measured in initial enrollment survey Positive scale = Negative and positive Rate the extent to which you feel this way in general: 0.84 affectivity

- Inspired, alert, excited, enthusiastic, determined Negative scale = (Mackinnon et al., 1999) - Afraid, upset, nervous, scared, distressed 0.84

1. Shy 2. Talkative 3. Energetic 4. Quiet 5. Extraverted 6. Outgoing 7. Reserved 8. Untalkative 9. Creative Extraversion = 10. Intellectual 11. Unimaginative 12. Artistic 0.91 13. Intelligent 14. Philosophical 15. Deep Openness = 0.79 Big 5 traits personality 16. Uncreative 17. Envious 18. Emotional Neuroticism = traits scale 19. Anxious 20. Unworried 21. Jealous 0.78

22. Unenvious 23. Moody 24. Unanxious Agreeableness = (Thompson, 2008) 25. Efficient 26. Disorganized 27. Careless 0.87 28. Untidy 29. Neat 30. Inefficient Conscientiousness 31. Systematic 32. Organized 33. Kind = 0.90 34. Sympathetic 35. Harsh 36. Cooperative 37. Unkind 38. Warm 39. Rude 40. Inconsiderate

Please indicate the extent to which below statements are applicable to your job Job complexity 1. My job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time (R) 0.87 (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2. The tasks on my job are simple and uncomplicated (R) 2006) 3. My job comprises of relatively uncomplicated tasks (R) 4. My job involves performing relatively simple tasks (R)

137

Please indicate the extent to which below statements are applicable to your job Interaction requirements of the job 1. The job requires spending a great deal of time with people 0.88 2. The job involves interaction with people (Morgeson & Humphrey, 3. On the job, I frequently communicate with people 2006) 4. The job involves a great deal of interaction with people

Please indicate the extent to which below statements are applicable to your job Task interdependence 1. I have to obtain information and advice from my colleagues to complete my (Van Der Vegt, Emans, work 0.77 & Vliert, 2001; Van Der 2. I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with others (R) Vegt, Van De Vliert, & 3. I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly Oosterhof, 2003) 4. To complete our work, my colleagues and I have to exchange information and advice

138

Appendix C – Comparison of Participants Recruited Directly versus via Snowball

Of the 120 enrolled participants, 65 (54%) were directly recruited by me. The remaining

55 (46%) were recruited via the snowball technique where the participants who had signed up

invited their friends to participate in the study. I checked whether participants recruited by these

two methods differed based on psychological and job characteristics relevant to the main

variables of interest—work intrusions and emotions. First, I included my substantive between

individual moderator of trait need to belong in this analysis. Further, due to a focus on employee

intrusions and emotions, I checked for differences in age, trait positivity, trait negativity, and the

Big 5 personality traits, which can influence employee emotions and responses to workplace

events such as intrusions (Baethge & Rigotti, 2015; Grandey et al., 2002; Hunter et al., in press;

Rodell & Judge, 2009; Russell et al., 2017). I also checked for differences in job characteristics

that research indicates could influence the occurrence or experience of work intrusions such as

job complexity, job interaction requirements, task interdependence, and daily work hours (Jett &

George, 2003; Parke et al., 2018; Perlow, 1999). The results are given below. The participants

from these two groups did not seem to differ based on these characteristics.

One-way ANOVA to Compare Participants Recruited Directly versus vis Snowball

Variable Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Personal Characteristics Between Groups 398.75 1 398.75 2.71 0.102 Age Within Groups 17217.09 117 147.15 Total 17615.84 118 Between Groups 0.02 1 0.02 0.05 0.808 Trait need to belong Within Groups 37.20 118 0.31 Total 37.21 119 Between Groups 0.400 1 0.40 0.95 0.330 Trait positivity Within Groups 49.17 118 0.41 Total 49.57 119 Between Groups 0.700 1 0.70 1.229 0.270 Trait negativity Within Groups 67.19 118 0.56 Total 67.89 119

139

Between Groups 0.569 1 0.56 0.682 0.411 Big 5 extraversion Within Groups 98.38 118 0.83 Total 98.95 119 Between Groups 0.01 1 0.01 0.007 0.934 Big 5 openness Within Groups 52.03 118 0.44 Total 52.03 119 Between Groups 0.000 1 0.00 0.001 0.978 Big 5 neuroticism Within Groups 64.13 118 0.54 Total 64.13 119 Between Groups 0.234 1 0.23 0.512 0.476 Big 5 Within Groups 53.93 118 0.45 conscientiousness Total 54.16 119 Between Groups 0.587 1 0.58 2.011 0.159 Big 5 Within Groups 34.40 118 0.29 agreeableness Total 34.99 119 Job Characteristics Between Groups 0.020 1 0.02 0.023 0.879 Job complexity Within Groups 104.55 118 0.88 Total 104.57 119 Between Groups 0.15 1 0.15 0.239 0.626 Job interaction Within Groups 78.64 118 0.66 requirements Total 78.79 119 Between Groups 2.15 1 2.15 3.142 0.079 Task Within Groups 80.89 118 0.68 interdependence Total 83.04 119 Between Groups 1.35 1 1.35 1.575 0.212 Daily work hours Within Groups 96.02 112 0.85 Total 97.37 113

140

Appendix D – Comparison of Respondents versus Non-respondents to the Daily Surveys

Of the 120 participants who enrolled in the initial survey, 117 participants completed at least one day of survey data. Similar to the analysis in Appendix C, I compared whether the non- participants differed from the participants based on key psychological variables and job characteristics that are relevant to the key variables of interest—work intrusions and emotions.

The groups did not significantly differ on these variables. Below are the results of this analysis.

One-Way ANOVA to Compare Daily Respondents versus Non-Respondents Variable Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Personal Characteristics Between Groups 203.64 1 203.64 1.368 0.244 Age Within Groups 17412.20 117 148.82 Total 17615.84 118 Between Groups 0.54 1 0.54 1.753 0.188 Trait need to belong Within Groups 36.67 118 0.31 Total 37.21 119 Between Groups 1.24 1 1.24 3.045 0.084 Trait positivity Within Groups 48.32 118 0.41 Total 49.57 119 Between Groups 1.03 1 1.03 1.82 0.179 Trait negativity Within Groups 66.86 118 0.56 Total 67.89 119 Between Groups 0.016 1 0.01 0.019 0.892 Big 5 extraversion Within Groups 98.93 118 0.83 Total 98.95 119 Between Groups 0.045 1 0.04 0.102 0.750 Big 5 openness Within Groups 51.99 118 0.44 Total 52.03 119 Between Groups 0.326 1 0.32 0.603 0.439 Big 5 neuroticism Within Groups 63.80 118 0.54 Total 64.13 119 Between Groups 0.319 1 0.31 0.699 0.405 Big 5 Within Groups 53.84 118 0.45 conscientiousness Total 54.16 119 Between Groups 0.464 1 0.46 1.586 0.210 Big 5 agreeableness Within Groups 34.52 118 0.29 Total 34.99 119

141

Job Characteristics Between Groups 0.93 1 0.93 1.068 0.304 Job complexity Within Groups 103.63 118 0.87 Total 104.57 119 Between Groups 1.68 1 1.68 2.575 0.111 Job interaction Within Groups 77.11 118 0.65 requirements Total 78.79 119 Between Groups 2.19 1 2.19 3.197 0.076 Task Within Groups 80.85 118 0.685 interdependence Total 83.04 119 Between Groups 0.469 1 0.46 0.543 0.463 Daily work hours Within Groups 96.91 112 0.86 Total 97.37 113

142