sign in sign up
<<
Home , Affect theory, Group emotion, Rush (psychology)

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2006 The Antecedents and Consequences of Regulation at Work Yongmei Liu Ph. D.

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more , please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF EMOTION REGULATION AT WORK

By

YONGMEI LIU

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Degree Awarded Fall semester, 2006

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Yongmei Liu, defended on May 19, 2005.

______Pamela L. Perrewé Professor Directing Dissertation

______John Corrigan Outside Committee Member

______Gerald R. Ferris Committee Member

______Bruce T. Lamont Committee Member

Approved:

______Bruce T. Lamont, Chairman, Department of Management

______Caryn L. Beck-Dudley, Dean, College of Business

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables...... iii List of Figures...... vi Abstract...... vii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 8

3. MODELS AND HYPOTHESES...... 27

4. RESEARCH ...... 48

5. RESULTS...... 55

6. CONCLUSION...... 66

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Employee Questionnaire Key...... 117

Appendix B: Co-worker Questionnaire Key...... 123

Appendix C: Cover Letter for Employee Survey Questionnaire...... 127

Appendix D: Cover Letter for Co-worker Survey Questionnaire...... 128

REFERENCES...... 129

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 143

iii

LIST OF TABLES

1. A Comparison of the Similarity and Differences between the Construct of and Emotion Regulation...... 78

2. Summary of Hypotheses...... 79

3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables ...... 81

4. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting the Frequency of Emotion Self Regulation Using Self Report Social Status (Test for Hypotheses 1 through 4)……...... 86

5. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting the Frequency of Emotion Self Regulation Using Peer Report Social Status (Test for Hypotheses 1through 4)…...... 87

6a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5)…………………………………….……...... 88

6b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5a) ...... 89

7a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5b)...... 90

7b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5b) ………………………………...... 91

8a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6a)………………………………...... 92

8b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6a) ……………………………………………………...... 93

iv 9a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6b)………………..…………...... 94

9b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6b)...... 95

10a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 7a) ...... 96

10b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 7a) ...... 97

11a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 7b) ...... 98

11b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 7b)...... 99

12a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Self Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 8)...... 100

12b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 8)...... 101

13a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Self Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 9)...... 102

13b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Peer Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 9)...... 103

14a. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Self Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 10)...... 104

v 14b. Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Peer Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 10) ...... 105

15. Summary of Hypotheses Tests...... 106

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. A Process Model of Emotion Regulation ...... 107

2. The Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Reappraisal Measure ...... 108

3a. Hypotheses Testing for Hypotheses 11-19 (Self Report Job Performance) ...... 109

3b. Hypotheses Testing for Hypotheses 11-19 (Peer Report Job Performance) ...... 110

4a. Additional Analyses on the Main Effects of Emotion Regulatory Strategies: Proposed Model...... 111

4b. Additional Analyses on the Main Effects of Emotion Regulatory Strategies: Results...... 112

5a. Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 1...... 113

5b. Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 2...... 114

5c. Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 3...... 115

5d. Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 4...... 116

vii

ABSTRACT Emotion regulation at work has been receiving an increasing amount of research in the literature over the past two decades. The management literature has focused primarily on emotion regulation in the service sector, with emotional dissonance as the explanatory variable predicting primarily negative intrapersonal outcomes, such as experienced stress and burnout. An emerging stream of research in other literatures, such as developmental and social psychology, however, views emotion regulation in a more positive way as being essential for personal growth and positive social relationships. Building on this stream of research and previous literature on emotional labor, it is proposed that both intrapersonal and interpersonal mechanisms are important factors that determine the consequences of emotion regulation. By integrating interpersonal mechanisms of emotion regulation in the theory building, and by examining individuals’ emotion regulatory behaviors beyond the service sector, this study seeks to present a clearer picture as to the influences of emotion regulation on one’s work life than has been previously examined. Integrating previous research, the dissertation presents a comprehensive model of the antecedents, mediators, moderators, and consequences of emotion regulation. Both situational and individual differences factors that influence individuals’ tendency to regulate their own are considered. Further, emotion regulatory strategies and political skill are argued to play important roles in determining the effectiveness of emotion regulation. Both intrapersonal mechanisms (i.e., emotional dissonance) and interpersonal mechanisms (i.e., peer perceived authenticity, liking, , and social support) are proposed to mediate the influences emotion regulation has on such work related outcomes as affective well being, job satisfaction and job performance. Matched survey data were collected from 108 pairs of employees from a hospice organization. Hierarchical regression and structural equation modeling were used to test the hypotheses. Additional analyses were also conducted based on the hypotheses testing results and prior research. Results provided support for a number of the hypotheses forth regarding the antecedents of emotion self regulation, including the positive influence of emotional self

viii awareness, and negative influence of social status, on the frequency of emotion self regulation. The majority of the moderating hypotheses did not receive support from the data. The data also failed to provide adequate support for the interpersonal mechanisms of emotion self regulation. However, further analyses of the main effects of emotion regulatory strategies revealed some interesting relationships between emotion regulatory strategies and relationship quality and affective well being, and further, with job satisfaction, trust, and social support. The additional analyses also found evidence for main effects of political skill on work related outcomes including affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance. A discussion of the results includes an evaluation of research limitations, suggestions for future research, contributions to the literature, and practical limitations.

ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Emotions have been increasingly recognized as a natural part of the organizational life, which have significant influences on a wide range of individual and organizational outcomes, such as employee attitudes, behaviors and performance, leadership effectiveness, group cooperation, and organizational adaptation to change (Arvey, Renz, & Watson, 1998; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Brundin, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Emotions not only influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), they also shape interpersonal relationships at work (Fredrickson, 1998; Waldron, 2000; Wharton & Erickson, 1993). Given the understanding that emotions should not be neglected or marginalized in the workplace (Mumby & Putnam, 1992), the question arises whether emotion can add value to the well being and effectiveness of individuals and organizations. Unfortunately, the existence of emotions in organizations seems to be a mixed blessing. For example, although being content is related to the of “oneness,” indicating an enhanced sense of well being (Fredrickson, 1998), is also related to a lack of to change the status quo which hinders creativity and innovation (George & Zhou, 2002); although may sometimes enhance one’s social status (Tiedens, 2001), it may also trigger counterproductive work behaviors (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Thus, although many have argued for the functional role of emotions (Plutchik, 1980; Fredrickson, 1998; Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 1984), it is nonetheless the truth that emotions could at times become quite dysfunctional for individuals, groups, and organizations (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). What makes emotions functional? A critical part of the answer lies in the conscious effort that individuals make to handle emotion laden issues, that is, emotion regulation. Emotion regulation pervades individuals’ lives (Gross, 1999a). From moment to moment, due to motives such as adhering to the organizational (e.g., Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988), maintaining a good self-image (e.g., Goffman, 1959), or avoiding in social interactions (e.g., Cahill & Eggleston, 1994), people control the way they feel and express their emotions. Effective emotion regulation is essential for one’s physical and psychological well being (Bradley, 1990; Greenspan & Porges, 1984), as well as social functioning (Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Laron, DeVoe, & Schoeberlein,1989). Thus, potentially, emotion regulation could be a

1 very positive force that promotes individual well being and performance at work (Gross, 1999b; Waldron, 2000). Therefore, effective emotion regulation may serve as the boundary condition for emotions to be functional, that is, to contribute to individual performance in a positive way. Thus, as a first step in the investigation of emotion regulation at work, the purpose of this study is to answer some basic questions regarding emotion regulation. Specifically, the research questions are as follows: (1) What are some of the situational and dispositional antecedents of emotion regulation? (2) What are some of the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation for the individuals? (3) What are the relationships between the intrapersonal and interpersonal mechanisms involved in emotion regulation? (4) What are some of the moderating factors that influence the consequences of emotion regulation? In terms of antecedents of emotion regulation, an organizational factor (i.e., organizational display rules), two interactional context factors (i.e., one’s own social status and interaction partner status), and an individual difference factor (i.e., emotional awareness) are theoretically modeled and empirically examined. In terms of consequences of emotion regulation, I distinguish intrapersonal from interpersonal consequences in an effort to develop a clearer picture of the mechanisms and the complex ways that emotion regulation influences work related outcomes. I also examine the moderating role of emotion regulatory strategy in the emotion regulation – outcome relationship. Emotion and Emotion Regulation Emotion has been defined differently in the literature. Scholars from different backgrounds emphasize different facets of emotions. For example, some focus on the physiological aspect of emotion and define emotion as a feeling state (e.g., Frijda, 1986; James, 1884); others believe the cognitive element of emotion is its most defining characteristic (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Plutchik, 1980; Solomon, 2000); still others emphasize the social meaning of emotion (Averill, 1980; Thoits, 1989). An emerging consensual definition of emotion, however, has viewed emotion as a multicomponential process which includes experiential, behavioral, and physiological elements (Gross, 1998a, 1999a). According to this view, emotion is an emergent process which starts with emotional cues sent by the environment or self, which induce the individual’s emotional response tendencies in the forms of behavioral, experiential reactions, and physiological ; these emotional tendencies then lead to the individual’s emotional responses (Gross, 1998a).

2 This process-oriented definition of emotion makes it evident that emotion regulation is best understood as a process, which involves the management of one’s environment and the manipulation of one’s emotional expressions. Based on this process-oriented definition of emotion, emotion regulation has been defined as individuals’ monitoring their emotional experiences and expressions that occur at various points of the emotion process, during which they decide which emotions to have, when to have them, and how to experience and express them (Gross, 1998a; 1999a). This definition has emphasized self-focused emotion regulation (cf., Gross, 1999a; Pugliesi, 1999; Thoits, 1996; Woulters, 1989) which is different from other forms of emotion regulation, such as those intended to influence others’ emotions with or without changing one’s own emotional states (e.g., emotional labor, or emotional work – as defined by the current literature). Emotion self regulation is the primary focus of this study. Gross (1998a) proposed that, depending on the stage of the emotion process in which the emotion regulatory behaviors occur, emotion regulation could be categorized broadly into two groups, antecedent-focused emotion regulation, which manipulates the input of the system, and response-focused emotion regulation, which manipulates the output of the system. Specifically, antecedent-focused regulation involves such strategies as selective attention to events and cognitive reappraisal, which relates directly to one’s felt emotion; response-focused regulation involves the suppression of expressions, which relates directly to expressed or displayed emotion. Gross and colleagues have conducted a series of studies that showed antecedent- focused regulatory strategies were more effective than response-focused regulatory strategies (Gross, 1998a; Gross & John, 2003; Gross & Levenson, 1997; Richards & Gross, 2000). Thus, regulatory strategy seems to be an important moderator of the emotion regulation-outcome relationship. In the organization literature, in emotion regulation has just emerged from the more mature literature of emotional labor, a more applied concern regarding individuals’ emotion regulatory effort in compliance with the requirement or expectation of the employer. Recently, however, several researchers have attempted to link emotional labor research with Gross’ (1998a) process theory of emotion regulation. Despite the increasing amount of theoretical and empirical research on the phenomenon of emotion regulation in various literatures (e.g., George, 2002; Grandey, 2000; Gross, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c;

3 Hochschild, 1983; Thoits, 1996; Totterdell & Holman, 2003), this is still a new area of inquiry and many questions have yet to be answered to obtain a better understanding of the phenomenon. In addition, although prior experimental research has provided consistent evidence as to the effectiveness of different emotion regulatory strategies (e.g., Gross, 1998a; Gross & Levenson, 1997; Gross & John, 2003), these findings have yet to be further validated in field studies. Antecedents of Emotion Regulation Organizational factors. Norms in organizations regarding serve as an important guide for individuals to experience and express certain emotions. The existence of “feeling rules” and “display rules” (i.e., organizational norms regarding what emotions are appropriate for employees to feel and express) (Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987) reflects the effort that organizations put forth to regulate employees’ emotional expressions and experiences. Because most display rules are implicit in nature, they may not be perceived by employees. However, when display rules are strong, employees are better able to perceive it and behave accordingly. In addition, organizations with strong display rules also are more likely to have relevant selection, training, socialization, and reward and punishment systems in place to foster desired emotional experiences and expressions among employees (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Therefore, it is likely that individuals working in organizations that have strong display rules have a stronger tendency to regulate their emotions than those working in organizations that have only weak display rules. Interactional context. Whereas the environment (e.g., organization) provides general guidelines as to what emotions are appropriate, and therefore, guides individuals’ emotion regulatory effort, individuals’ emotional behaviors are more closely influenced by the interaction context, which gives specific cues that guide individuals’ behaviors (George, 1997; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). One important characteristic of the context is individuals’ status in their immediate work environment as reflected by both formal ranking and informal social status. It has been argued that, compared with those who have lower status, higher-status individuals have more freedom in terms of emotional expression (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002), because emotion is a function of power (Clark, 1990; Kemper, 1984, 1990). It is likely that higher status is associated with less frequent emotion self regulation behaviors. Individual differences. Individuals’ behaviors are a function of both situational factors and individual differences (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Pervin, 1989). One of the most

4 relevant individual difference variables is emotional awareness, which refers to the degree to which individuals are aware of their own and others’ emotional states. Emotional awareness has been shown to be positively related to emotion regulation (Feldman Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001). Consequences of Emotion Regulation The emotional labor literature suggests overall negative consequences of emotion regulation. The general argument has been that emotion regulation involves emotional dissonance (i.e., the discrepancy between felt and expressed emotions), and emotional dissonance, in turn, leads to negative physical and psychological outcomes, such as stress and burnout (Hochschild, 1983; Morris & Feldman, 1996b; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000). However, the empirical findings regarding this assertion, however, have not been consistent. For example, it has been found that certain individual difference factors such as , organizational identification, role internalization, and job involvement moderate the influence of emotional labor on individual outcomes (Andrew & Feldman, 1996; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000; Erickson & Wharton, 1997). Moreover, the literature has argued for an essential role of emotion regulation in the development of one’s emotional competency (Feldman Barret & Gross, 2001; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey, Hsee, & Mayer, 1993). Thus, whereas the failure of proper emotion regulation may lead to development of psychological disturbance and mental illness (Bradley, 1990; Greenspan & Porges, 1984), effective emotion regulation may enhance one’s emotional competency and facilitate one’s social functioning (Feldman Barrett & Gross, 2001; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The mixed results regarding the consequences of emotion regulation may be better explained when one distinguishes between the intrapersonal- and interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation, as is discussed below. The mediating role of the intrapersonal and interpersonal mechanisms. Emotions serve important social functions (Andersen & Guerrero, 1996; Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Parkinson, 1996; Thoits, 1989). In interpersonal interactions, individuals are influenced by others’ emotional reactions. People adjust their emotional behaviors moment to moment based on the emotional cues sent by others (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1989; Hatfield et al., 1994). Therefore, the emotion regulation process does not only bring a change in one’s own emotional states, it also helps shape interpersonal relationships. A certain emotion regulatory

5 effort can be positive to one’s own affective well being, and, at the same time, be harmful to interpersonal interactions, and vice-versa. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the two related but distinct mechanisms through which emotion regulation has its influences. Prior research, however, has primarily focused on the intrapersonal mechanisms and consequences. Therefore, in this study, I examine both the intrapersonal consequences of emotion regulation (i.e., emotional dissonance, job-related affective well being, burnout, job satisfaction, job performance) and the interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation (i.e., peer perceived authenticity, liking, trust, and social support). By simultaneously modeling both, the relative importance of each mechanism is likely to manifest. The moderating role of emotion regulatory strategy and political skill. It is proposed that emotional regulatory strategy and political skill each serve as moderators for the emotion regulation – outcomes relationships. The emotion regulatory strategies that individuals use are critical when examining the impact of emotion regulation on outcomes (e.g., emotional dissonance, perceived authenticity, and liking). The literature has consistently indicated that antecedent-focused regulatory strategies (e.g., situation selection, situation modification, or reappraisal) are more effective than responses-focused regulatory strategies (e.g., suppression of emotions) (e.g., Gross, 1998a; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). In his experimental studies, Gross (1998a) induced the emotion of in his subjects by showing them a disgusting film. The subjects were instructed either to simply watch the movie, or cognitively reappraise the film so that they would not feel disgust, or suppress their so that no observable emotional expressions would be shown. The results of the experiment indicated that although reappraisal (antecedent-focused emotion regulation) and suppression of emotions (response-focused emotion regulation) both were effective at reducing emotional expressive behaviors, suppression did not preclude the subjects manifesting physiological emotional arousal which was not directly observable. Thus, it seems that antecedent-focused emotion regulation is more effective than response-focused emotion regulation in influencing one’s internal emotional experiences. Thus, in this study, the moderating role of the regulatory strategy in the emotion regulation-outcomes relationship is examined. Political skill is another potential moderator in the emotion self regulation –outcome relationship. Political skill refers to the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to

6 use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives (Perrewé, Zellars, Ferris, Rossi, Kacmar, & Ralston, 2004). Political skill is characterized by the social perceptiveness and the ability to adjust one’s behaviors to situational needs (Ferris, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Frink, 2001). It has been argued that individuals with high political skill are capable of flexibly adapting their behaviors to different situational needs. Together with the possibility that individuals with high political skill are more comfortable adjusting their sense of true self based on their interactions with the social environment (cf., Tracey, 2000), it seems that individuals with high political skill are less likely to experience emotional dissonance when they regulate their emotions. In addition, it has been argued that individuals with high political skill know how to establish interpersonal interactions that are characterized with trust and sincerity (Ferris, Berkson, Kaplan et al., 1999). It is thus proposed that political skill increases the likelihood for one’s emotion regulation behaviors to be perceived by peers as authentic and be well received (indicated by peer liking). Summary The main contention of this study is that emotion regulation at work can generate positive outcomes for individuals in the form of both intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. The key for effective emotion regulation is the emotion regulatory strategies one uses, and importantly, the efficacy of such behaviors to generate positive interpersonal dynamics. For example, antecedent-focused emotion regulation (Gross, 1998a) should yield positive outcomes since it decreases the occurrence of emotional dissonance and others’ perception of authenticity, liking, trust, and support. The rest of the dissertation unfolds as follows; Chapter 2 examines the literature regarding emotion regulation. Building on prior research, a model of the antecedents and consequences of emotion regulation is presented in Chapter 3. Hypotheses based on the literature and original theorizing are then offered. Chapter 4 describes the research design and the data analysis strategy. Chapter 5 presents the research methodology and results. Chapter 6 provides the discussions and suggestions for future research, as well as practical implications of these results.

7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter examines the literature on emotion regulation. It starts with a brief overview of the role of emotion and emotion regulation in organizations. The construct domain of emotion regulation is then examined, followed by a review of the existing theoretical and empirical development on its antecedents and consequences. Emotion in Organizations Emotion is a natural part of daily organizational life. People do not check their emotions at the door when they come to work. Rather, they experience feelings of , , , , as well as anger, , , , and , through a variety of work events that are full of affective meanings (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). These various emotions are powerful generators of people’s thoughts and actions at work, as well as other life situations (Frijda, 1986; Fredrickson, 1998). Since the dawn of the human relation perspective, emotions have been an implicit feature of many classics in the organization literature (e.g., Hersey, 1932; Rothlisberger & Dickson, 1949). Unfortunately, the critical role of emotion has been ignored in the organization literature for an extended period of time following the industrial revolution, where formalization and economic efficiency were highly focused and emotion largely marginalized (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). It was not until very recently that it was brought to the attention of organization researchers again. It has now been recognized that understanding the emotional nature of the work life is as essential as understanding the rational perspective (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Fineman, 1993; Mumby & Putnam, 1992; Putnam & Mumby, 1993). Many have argued that, since cognition and emotion are intertwined with each other so closely, it is hard to determine whether it is cognition or emotion that is the driving force underlying a course of action. Rather, each should be included in the other’s domain in trying to explain an organizational phenomenon (Fineman, 1999, 2000). Some researchers have made an even stronger case by challenging the long standing assumption of bounded rationality, arguing that individuals’ limited ability to fully comprehend emotions (i.e., bounded ) should serve as another fundamental assumption of organizing (Mumby & Putnam, 1992; Putnam & Mumby, 1993). Mumby and Putnam (1992; Putnam & Mumby, 1993) argued that a more positive way of organizing should acknowledge emotions and people’s restricted ability to

8 understand and regulate their own and others’ emotions, and employ an open but controlled emotional communication pattern among employees which manifests itself in mutual caring, understanding, and sense of community (See also Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998). Despite the abundance of research on emotion in a variety of literatures such as psychology, social psychology, biology, , and political science, a consensual definition of emotion is still lacking. Researchers with different theoretical backgrounds define emotion in diverse ways. Some examine emotion as a feeling state (Frijda, 1986), others see cognition as a natural part of emotion (Lazarus, 1991), still others see it as a chain of reactions to external and internal stimuli, which includes cognitive, physiological, and behavioral elements (Gross, 1998a). Thoits (1989), for example, identified two main branches of emotional research, the social constructivist approach and the naturalist approach. The naturalists (e.g., Plutchik, 1980; Darwin, 1872/1998) believe that there are certain basic emotions that people feel, which correspond, at an individual basis, with the underlying physiological mechanisms. In other words, felt emotions are determined by individuals’ physiological reactions to environmental information, and once an underlying physiological mechanism is induced, so is a specific, corresponding felt emotional state. The social constructivists (e.g., Averill, 1980; Thoits, 1989, 1990; Fineman, 1993) disagree with the argument and believe that emotions are socially defined, and physiological arousal or sentiment can correspond to different felt and displayed emotions, and vice versa. Here the emotions become an object that is subject to individuals’ interpretations. Recently, building on prior literature on emotion, Gross (1998a) proposed a process view of emotion. In this view, emotion is defined as a dynamic process in which individuals’ emotional reaction tendencies (both experiential, physiological, and behavioral) are enacted by external or internal stimuli. These emotional reaction tendencies induce emotional responses (e.g., emotional expression). This definition of emotion is consistent with many schools of thoughts, such as the cognitive perspective of emotion (Lazarus, 1991), and the evolutionary view of emotion (Plutchik, 1980), as well as the social constructive approach of emotion (Thoits, 1989); it provides a definition of emotion that acknowledges the complex influences of cognition as well as the dynamic person-situation encountering. I therefore adopt this definition of emotion in this study. Many have argued for the adaptive function of emotions (e.g., Frijda, 1988; Plutchik, 1980). For example, feelings of generate reaction tendencies to run away, whereas feelings

9 of joy and love draw people together to accomplish tasks more effectively. Such behavioral consequences of emotions, therefore, contribute to individual and communal adaptation in a positive way. But it has long been understood that emotions cannot be guaranteed to be functional in all situations for all individuals. It has been argued that the adaptive functions of emotions that are required for the individuals by the complex social tasks oftentimes exceed what the adaptive function of emotion system can most efficiently support (Levenson, 1999). Increasingly, people find that they cannot flee from a threatening situation as they wish for reasons such as to maintain a positive self-image or due to moral considerations. There are also situations where individuals cannot freely show their true feelings because of certain professional norms regarding emotional expressions (Pogrebin & Poole, 2002; Smith & Kleinman, 1989; Sutton, 1991). Thus, what is adaptive from the simple psychological or biological perspective may not be quite as adaptive when one considers that humans have to behave in socially appropriate ways in order to be accepted by the society. This makes emotion regulation a critical feature in social and organizational life. Emotion Regulation Emotion regulation is a prominent feature of an adult’s personal, social, and organizational life. Proper emotion regulatory behavior not only helps one to build a desirable self-image (Parrott, 1993), but it is also a precondition for the smooth functioning of social interactions (Cahill & Eggleston, 1994). Effective emotion regulation is an essential element of individual emotional competency (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Feldman Barrett & Gross, 2001). Therefore, an examination of the emotion regulation phenomenon in the workplace, including its unique antecedents and outcomes, and its boundary conditions for effectiveness, is likely to provide useful insights as to how to build an emotionally healthy and, at the same time, highly effective workplace. Below, I give a brief introduction to the literature on emotion regulation, and then I discuss the concept domain of emotion regulation in depth. The literature on emotion regulation has not emerged as an independent field of research until very recently. Research on emotion regulation originated in developmental psychology in the early 1980s (Gaensbauer, 1982). Earlier research examined mother-child interactions and the development of children’s emotion regulation styles (Cassidy, 1994; Thompson, 1994). Currently, in the psychology literature, emotion regulation has been flourishing in both the child and adult literatures (e.g., Gross, 1998a; Gross & John, 2003).

10 In the organizational literature, research specifically concerned with emotion regulation has only recently emerged (e.g., Cropanzano, Weiss, & Ellias, 2004; Grandey, 2000; Pugh, 2002; Totterdell & Holman, 2003), but interest in emotion regulatory behaviors at work is increasing rapidly. Such interests manifest most fully in the literature of emotional labor. The notion of emotional labor originated in Hochschild’s (1979, 1983) work on emotional management, examining individuals’ regulation of emotional experiences at work in accordance with the job requirements. Hochschild (1983) coined the term emotional labor to highlight the exchange nature of such effort and the commoditization of emotions in the service setting. At the center of the emotional labor construct, as proposed by Hochschild, is individuals’ self regulation of emotions (both felt emotions and expressed emotions) with the purpose to adhere to organizational expectations in terms of emotional display. Perhaps because of its immediate application for the service sector and workplace in general (for example, its positive implication for customer satisfaction and loyalty), the notion of emotional labor has quickly been popularized in organizational research. A considerable amount of empirical, as well as theoretical, work has been done in this area (See Cropanzano et al, 2004; Grandey, 2000 for reviews). The majority of the empirical research in the emotional labor literature, however, has shifted the emphasis from Hochschild’s (1983) original concern, the management of one’s internal emotional experiences, to the manipulation of the expression of emotions (Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, Blass, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2002). Thus, a departure in the emotional labor literature from the core concern of emotion regulation is that it focuses more on the expression of the organizationally required emotions with the purpose of influencing others (e.g., customers) emotions and behaviors, rather than individuals’ proactive monitoring of their own emotional experiences with the primary purpose of managing their own emotions. Although one’s emotion self regulation behavior could others’ emotions, this other-focused influence intention is not its primary purpose. A number of studies have attempted to integrate the emotional labor literature with the emotion regulation theory proposed by Gross (1998a). Grandey (2000) recently reconceptualized emotional labor from the emotion regulation point of view. She argued that response-focused emotion regulation is associated with surface acting (i.e., emotional laborer changes of expressed emotions without trying to align the felt emotions accordingly), and that antecedent-focused emotion regulation is associated with deep acting (i.e., emotional laborer changes felt emotions

11 to be consistent with emotions expressed). Further, based on Gross’ theorizing on emotion regulation, it was reasoned that deep acting involves positive outcomes, while surface acting involves negative outcomes. It was argued that surface acting, but not deep acting, results in a discrepancy between felt emotions and expressed emotions (i.e., emotional dissonance) (Grandey, 2000). More recently, an interesting field study was done by Totterdell and Holman (2003), which provided preliminary evidence for Gross’ (1998a) theory, showing that antecedent- focused regulatory strategies were more effective than response-focused regulatory strategies. In this study, building on Gross’ (1998a) theory of emotion regulation and Grandey’s (2000) reconceptualization of emotional labor, the authors proposed that emotion regulation involves regulatory motives and regulatory strategies. Different regulatory motives (i.e., modify feelings vs. modify expressions) determine which emotion regulatory strategy (i.e., deep acting vs. surface acting) one is going to use. They also proposed that experienced emotions resulting from emotional events at work induce one’s emotion regulatory behaviors, which further influence individual and organizational well being. In their model, individual and organizational factors also were modeled to be influential to one’s emotion regulatory behaviors. Such factors include gender, emotional expressivity, emotional intelligence, organizational control, and supervisor support. Together, these recent studies suggest interesting directions for future research in this field of study. Before moving to a more detailed review of the literature, however, a discussion of the construct domain of emotion regulation is in order. Classifying Emotion Regulation Emotion regulation can be classified along several dimensions, including whether it is unconscious or conscious (George, 2002; Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999; Zapf, 2002), whether it is self-oriented or other-oriented (Gross, 1999a), and whether it is upward or downward regulation (Parrott, 1993; Gross, 1999a). Each of these categories is discussed below. Nonconscious vs. conscious emotion regulation. Emotion regulation can occur at both the nonconscious and the conscious level (Gross & John, 2003; Mayer & Salovey, 1995). Nonconscious emotion regulation is a relatively automatic process. For example, being exposed to certain physical settings may induce certain emotions (Russell & Snodgrass, 1987). Another example of such process is the primitive (Hatfield et al., 1994), in which

12 individuals unconsciously “catch” others’ emotions in social interactions. Nonconscious emotion regulation also occurs when individuals are exposed to the same environments, events, and tasks (George, 2002). For example, working in the same work group and being rewarded and punished by the same group output have been found to be associated with a convergence of the group members’ affective states over time (Barsade, 2002; Barsade, Ward, Tuner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Totterdell, 2000; Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann, & Briner, 1998). Emotion regulation also occurs at a more deliberative level (George, 2002; Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999; Zapf, 2002). In the workplace, individuals oftentimes intentionally change their own and others’ emotional states for a variety of purposes such as protecting or maintaining self- esteem or to exert influences on others (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002). The focus of this study is on the emotion regulation that occurs when individuals are consciously aware of their effort in regulating their emotions, primarily for two reasons. First, conscious emotion regulation pervades the organizational setting whereby individuals have to interact with others and work together as a group. Interpersonal relations are rich sources for individual emotional experiences (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998). Frequent interactions are likely to generate many emotion- eliciting events that make the organizational context an affectively rich setting, and therefore, conscious emotion regulatory behaviors are abundant. Second, compared to nonconscious emotion regulation, the occurrence, and therefore, the consequences, of conscious emotion regulation are more under the control of individuals (Pugh, 2002). Thus, in terms of its practical relevance, focusing on conscious emotion regulation may provide more useful information for practitioners in their management practices. Self-oriented vs. other-oriented emotion regulation. Emotion regulation can be either self-oriented or other-oriented (Gross, 1999a; Pugliesi, 1999; Wouters, 1989). Emotion self regulation monitors the emotional experiences of self. Other-oriented emotion regulation monitors the emotions of others. Individuals are oftentimes motivated to regulate other people’s emotions. For example, people may intentionally show negative emotions such as anger to remind or warn others of their superior status (e.g., Matsumoto, 1991), or they may promote others’ positive emotions through humor and flattery with the intention of strengthening relationship ties (e.g., Waldron, 2000). In fact, emotion regulation often serves the function of impression management where individuals

13 direct their behaviors with the attempt to foster certain images or to establish certain atmospheres in social relationships (Goffman, 1959; Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Grove & Fiske, 1989). Past literature provides plenty of evidence where influencing other people’s emotions was the objective of one’s emotional expressions. For example, Thoits (1996) observed that, in psychotherapy groups, members are often encouraged to open up emotionally. By sharing, refocusing, and comforting, the group helps a target person regain his or her emotional balance. Shuler and Sypher (2000) reported that wheelchair users often try to use humor to put others at emotional ease and to avoid potentially embarrassing situations in public. In these case, although one’s emotional states are likely to be influenced by their own emotion regulatory effort (Thoits, 1996), the primary focus, however, was to change the target person’s emotional states. In another field study, Rafaeli and Sutton (1991) investigated how emotional contrasts (i.e., expressing positive and negative emotions sequentially to the same target by different persons) were used by individuals such as criminal investigators and tax collectors to manipulate the targets’ emotional states. While it is possible that their internal emotional state could be influenced by whatever the dramaturgical role the criminal investigators or tax collectors take, more often than not, their expressions of emotions do not touch their inner feelings. In these cases, people strategically intensify, mask, or neutralize their emotional expressions in order to influence others. Thus, depending on the situation concerned, other-oriented emotion regulation may or may not involve a change in one’s own emotional state. In contrast, emotion self regulation aims primarily at managing one’s own emotional state. Hochschild (1983) reported that flight attendants adjust their emotional experiences by imagining irritating customers as needy children who need caring, which helps them to feel less annoyed by the customers. Waitresses sometimes choose to temporarily escape from the immediate customer service scene by going to the kitchen when they become emotionally exhausted (Gatta, 2002). An inexperienced speaker may hold a clip in his hand when doing public speaking to direct his attention from the audiences’ reactions to the clip in order to get rid of the nervousness. Almost all adults regulate their emotions in their private and public lives, especially in the modern societies where open but controlled emotional expression is the norm, which requires skillful emotional self control (Mastenbroek, 2000). Besides managing one’s own emotional state and behaviors, emotion self regulation that occurs in the public setting also may

14 influence others’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors through such mechanisms as emotional contagion (Hatfield et al., 1994). It is important to note that, although conceptually different, it is not always possible to empirically distinguish between emotion self regulation and other-oriented emotion regulation. This is so because different motives could be manifested in the same expressive behaviors. For example, in a crisis situation, a leader may try to be calm in order to better handle the task at hand (emotion self regulation), or try to appear calm so that his followers may feel the same way (other-focused emotion regulation). From an observer’s perspective, the two situations involve the same leader behavior, but the motives are very different. Moreover, other-focused emotion regulation oftentimes involves emotion self regulation. In the above situation, instead of pretending to be calm, the leader may try to actually feel calm himself so that he can influence the followers’ emotions. However, since emotion self regulation and other-focused emotion regulation do involve different motives, regulatory strategies, and consequences (Gross, 1999a), the two subtypes of emotion regulation need to be examined differently. I focus only on emotion self regulation in the dissertation. Upward emotion regulation, downward emotion regulation, and emotional neutralization. Emotion regulation can also be usefully discussed along the upward regulation versus downward regulation dimension (Gross, 1999a; Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999). Upward emotion regulation refers to one’s effort to change oneself or others’ emotional states from a negative hedonic tone to a neutral or positive one. Thus, the objective of upward emotion regulation is to move one’s own or others’ negative emotional state towards the more neutral or positive end of the continuum. Downward emotion regulation refers to one’s effort to put oneself or others in a more negative emotional state than the emotional state one currently has. Thus, the objective of downward emotion regulation is to move one’s emotional state from a positive state towards the more negative or neutral end of the continuum. Both positive emotions and negative emotions can be neutralized to a less emotionally intense state, which occurs in emotional neutralization. Emotional neutralization drives one’s emotional state from either end of the continuum to the middle point. Emotional neutralization is common in professions such as medical care, and law practices.

15 The majority of research in the literature has focused on upward emotion regulation, that is, the regulation of negative emotions. It has been widely believed that individuals have a general tendency to seek pleasant emotional experiences and avoid negative ones (Parrott, 1993; Larsen, 2000). However, this view has been challenged by many who argue that negative emotions can serve very functional purposes and that there are many circumstances where individuals’ are for emotions to move away from happiness and toward less pleasurable emotional states (e.g., Gross, 1999a; Gross & John, 2002; Parrott, 1993; Parrott & Spackman, 2000). Indeed, there are plenty of life situations where individuals find a negative or neutral emotional state beneficial for the immediate situation. For example, George and Zhou (2002) found that negative emotions are beneficial for the performance of creative tasks. Zurcher (1982) observed that college football players would engage in routines that put themselves in a neutral emotional state before games so that they stay vigilant. It is obvious that in such situations downward emotion regulation or emotional neutralization is beneficial. Therefore, both positive and negative emotions need to be regulated (Gross, 1999a), and individuals need to acquire the capability to flexibly regulate their emotional states such that their emotions are appropriate for specific situations (Gross, 1999b). Thus, in this study, I examine all these subtypes of emotion self regulation. Emotion Regulation and Related Constructs Emotional labor. Although emotion regulation and emotional labor involve people’s effort to change the emotional experiences and expressions, emotion regulation and emotional labor are not identical constructs (Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Rather, they represent different construct domains, and involve different mechanisms as well as different antecedents and outcomes. Current literature has conceptualized emotion regulation as the underlying mechanism of (or process involved in) emotional labor (Cropanzano et al., 2004; Grandey, 2000; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). That is, in order to perform emotional labor, one has to regulate his or her emotions, either the inner feelings, or the emotional expressions, or both. In this sense, the same process of emotion regulation may or may not lead to one’s perception of emotional labor, depending on how one interprets the emotional experiences. From the perspective of the behaviors involved in both emotion regulation and emotional labor, it also can be argued that emotion regulation represents a larger construct domain than

16 emotional labor, since emotion regulation refers to individuals’ management of their emotions in all possible contexts, both private and public, service encounters and personal relationships. Emotion regulation also typically involves a wider variety of tactics than emotional labor does because the latter primarily concerns the control of negative emotions and the promotion of positive emotions (and most frequently, positive expressions). Table 1 presents a comparison between the two constructs in terms of the primary motives, objectives, tactics, and targets each of the two constructs involve. Self-regulation. Self regulation has been defined as the attempt to control or alter one’s own responses (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). General self-regulatory tasks that have been researched include such activities as dieting, abstaining from smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc. The essential nature of self-regulation is the overriding of one’s impulses, that is, to substitute one’s normal or natural tendency with another response (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). Emotion regulation has been discussed as a subtype of self-regulation, because it involves similar processes with other self-regulatory tasks (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). For example, similar to general self-regulation, emotion regulation involves substituting an emotion expression or feeling state with another (Muraven et al., 1998; Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). In addition, both emotion regulation and self-regulation consume cognitive and psychological resources (cf., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Gross, 1999a; Muraven et al., 1998; Wegner, Erber, & Zanakos, 1993). In terms of the relationship between self-regulation and emotion regulation, emotion regulation has been argued to be a special case of self-regulation in that people tend to give emotion regulation priority over other self-regulatory tasks (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000; Baumeister et al., 1998). This may result in the depletion of the resource needed for other self- regulatory tasks, and therefore, contribute to the failure of general self regulation (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). Thus, emotion regulation has important influences on general self-regulation. Coping. Coping usually refers to people’s ways of dealing with negative life events (Lazarus, 1991). Coping has been categorized into two different subclasses, problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Emotion-focused coping is motivated to modify unpleasant affective reactions, and therefore, should be viewed as an affect regulatory process (Gross, 1999c; Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999). However, it is important to note that emotion regulation does not equate with emotion-focused coping. Whereas emotion-focused coping focuses only on

17 the cognitive and emotional aspects of the situation, emotion regulation often occurs with active changes in one’s behaviors (See Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999 for a more detailed discussion). Strategies of Emotion Self Regulation Different emotion regulatory strategies are associated with different consequences. As shown in the emotional labor literature, surface acting, an emotion regulatory strategy that focuses on the monitoring of the expressed emotions, is more harmful for individuals’ physical and psychological health than deep acting (an emotion regulatory strategy that focuses on changing of felt emotions) (e.g., Hochschild, 1983; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000). Thus, it is likely that the emotion regulatory strategy used in emotion self regulation is a critical factor that influences the outcomes of emotion regulation. Given the complexity of the situations that require emotion regulation, it is not surprising that there are numerous strategies of emotion regulation. The literature shows that it is a challenging task to effectively classify different regulatory strategies. For example, based on self-report survey data, Parkinson and Totterdell (1999) identified a total of 162 upward affect regulatory strategies. A useful and practical way to categorize strategies of emotion regulation is seen in Gross’ model of emotion regulation (1998a, 2001). Gross (1998a) proposed an emotion regulation theory that distinguishes antecedent-focused and response-focused emotion regulation. He termed regulatory efforts attempting to influence the emotional response tendencies the antecedent-focused regulation. Such strategies involve selective attention to events and cognitive reappraisal. This type of strategy intends to change one’s felt emotion. He termed regulatory efforts attempting to influence emotional responses the response-focused regulation. An example of such strategies is the suppression of expressions. This type of strategy targets at one’s expressed emotions. Gross (2001) further detailed the strategies involved in emotion regulation based on the process model of emotion. He identified five points in the emotion process where individuals can manage their own emotions. These five circumstances are situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Situation selection refers to “approaching or avoiding certain people, places, or object in order to regulate emotions” (Gross, 1998b, p. 283). For example, when trying to feel happy, one may choose to go to a shopping mall with friends, rather than staying home alone. Once a

18 situation is chosen, one can still modify the features of the situation to meet one’s emotional needs. For example, a clerk who hates office work but has to stay in the office for most of the work time can choose to walk around and talk with colleagues a little so that the hours seem less boring. Attentional deployment occurs when one uses strategies such as distraction or concentration to change their cognitive focus. For example, a bored employee can choose to focus on the aspect of his or her work that seems exciting and challenging in order to boost the emotional energy. Cognitive change is one’s effort to modify the perceived situation in order to generate desirable perceptions and evaluations. For example, a person who views a sad movie can change his or her perception of the scene by telling himself or herself that the plot is fictional. Lastly, response modulation refers to “directly influencing physiological, experiential, or behavioral responding” (Gross, 1998b, p. 285). Faking a smile to one’s customer without feeling friendliness or warmth is an example of response modulation. Among the five categories, the first four categories (situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, and cognitive change) are considered to be antecedent-focused emotion regulation; and the last one, response modulation, is considered to be the response-focused emotion regulation. Gross and colleagues (e.g., Gross, 1998a; Gross & John, 2003; Gross & Levenson, 1997; Richards & Gross, 2000) have conducted a series of studies to validate the theoretical framework. It has been consistently found that antecedent-focused emotion regulation is more effective than outcome-focused emotion regulation in terms of the effectiveness of monitoring emotional expressive behaviors (Gross, 1998a), the cognitive resources required (Gross & Levenson, 1997; Richars & Gross, 2002), and the social consequences (Gross & John, 2003). In an experimental study (Gross, 1998a), subjects were shown a disgusting film while their emotional responses were recorded. Participants were instructed either to reappraise the film in ways that do not generate feelings of disgust, or to simply suppress their feelings. Compared to the control condition, both reappraisal and suppression were effective in reducing emotional expressive behaviors. However, only reappraisal led to decreases in both behavioral and subjective signs of emotion. Suppression, while effective at diminishing expressive behavior, had no influence on subjective experience, and had, in fact, increased the physiological response. In two different experiments, Gross and colleagues (Gross & Levenson, 1997; Richards & Gross, 2000) found that suppression consumed more cognitive resources than reappraisal such

19 that subjects who did memory tasks after suppression, performed significantly less effectively than those who reappraised. Gross and John (2003) did a survey study on the social functioning of emotion regulation. They found that individuals who habitually suppressed emotions were less likely to share their emotions with others, were less well liked by others, and were less likely to use social support in coping, compared to those who do not have a lower tendency to suppress emotions. As is evident, these findings are mostly from experimental studies or survey studies that were done outside organizational settings. Further investigations are needed to validate the results in the organizational setting and in field studies. Costs of emotion regulation. It has been argued that the underlying reason emotion regulatory strategies differ in their effectiveness and consequences is that they involve different levels of psychological and cognitive costs (Gross, 1998a; Gross & Levenson, 1997). Emotion regulation involves a feedback loop where individuals compare the desired emotional states with the existing ones; when a discrepancy is noted, an operating process will be initiated to reduce the perceived discrepancy (Larsen, 2000; Richards & Gross, 2000). Such monitoring and regulating processes, however, require effort and may deplete cognitive resources available for other tasks at hand. This is consistent with the reasoning in the self regulation literature. It has been argued that all acts of self regulation consume the limited pool of resources available within an individual (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1998; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Given the resources for one to exert self regulation efforts are a finite reserve at a given point of time, one self regulation task at hand may deplete resources needed for other tasks. Interestingly, suppression requires more cognitive resources since it is an ongoing process because it occurs relatively late in the emotion generation process, and therefore, requires ongoing monitoring of emotional expressions (Gross, 1998a; Richards & Gross, 2000). Antecedents of Emotion Regulation Although there has been a considerable amount of theoretical and empirical work done on the antecedents and outcomes of emotional labor (e.g., Grandey, 2000; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Totterdell & Holman, 2003), there is a lack of a systematic examination of the antecedents of emotion regulation per se. One such model is seen in Pugh’s (2002) recent work on emotion regulation. Based on Gross’ (1998a) model of emotion regulation, Pugh (2002) built a model of emotion regulation and its situational and individual antecedents. He proposed that emotion regulation involves a process in which emotional stimuli induce emotional response tendencies,

20 which further lead to emotional responses. Thus, factors that influence either the occurrence of the emotional stimuli or one’s emotional response tendencies to such stimuli will further influence one’s emotional responses. In the model, the task environment, such as the cognitive load, affective climate, and display rules were modeled as to influence both the occurrence of emotional stimuli and one’s response tendencies. It also was proposed that interaction partners’ expressed emotions influence the occurrence of emotional stimuli, and individual differences variables (e.g., emotional expressivity, gender, and skill) influence one’s emotional responses. This represents the first process model of the antecedents of emotion regulation in organizations. The proposed linkages are yet to be tested in empirical studies. Consequences of Emotion Regulation Evidence from the Emotional Labor Literature The variable that has received most of the research attention in the emotional labor literature is emotional dissonance. Emotional dissonance refers to the emotional state one experiences when there is a discrepancy between felt and expressed emotions (Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1989). Note that there is different understanding in terms of the relationship between emotional labor and emotional dissonance. For example, some have conceptualized emotional dissonance as a dimension or an essential part of emotional labor (Abraham, 1998; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Zapf, Vogt, Seifert, Mertini, & Isic, 1999). However, such conceptualization does not allow the situation where genuine emotions are expressed in the service encounters (Morris & Feldman, 1996b). Thus, it seems more appropriate to conceptualize emotional dissonance as one possible outcome of emotional labor. This is also consistent with the approach that has been taken by the majority of emotional labor research (Adelmann, 1989; Hartel, Hsu, & Boyle, 2002; Hochschild, 1983; Kruml & Geddes, 2000b; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). In Hochschild’s (1983) seminal work on emotional labor, she proposed that emotional labor, which is defined as “the management of feeling to create publicly observable facial and body display” (p. 7), leads to emotional dissonance, which further leads to and burnout. Following Hochschild (1983), a considerable amount of empirical work on emotional labor has focused on emotional dissonance as a mediating mechanism which leads to other work related outcomes, such as experienced stress and burnout (e.g., Adelmann, 1995;

21 Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1996b; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000), job dissatisfaction (e.g., Abraham, 1998; Rutter & Fielding, 1988), and customer service delivery (e.g., Grandey, 2003), among others. Collectively, this stream of research seems to suggest that emotion regulation is an inherently negative phenomenon, one that differentially affects individual well being and performance, and differentially affects individual and organizational well being. First, individuals who successfully monitor their emotional expressions as prescribed by the organization usually obtain positive performance outcomes, such as being rewarded by the organization that put forth the display rules (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988), or being rewarded by the target person in the forms of good tips from customers, favorable customer evaluations of service quality, and peer performance evaluations (Grandey, 2003; Parkinson, 1991; Pugh, 2001). However, these performance gains usually come with a decreased level of emotional and psychological well being, as evident by the emotional dissonance, and subsequently, stress and burnout, experienced by individuals. Second, although individuals’ well being oftentimes suffers, organizations seem to gain better economic outcomes when employees express emotions according to the employers’ expectations (Witt, 1999). For example, business unit success in service jobs largely depends on workers’ abilities to create positive transaction experiences for customers (Witt, 1999). In addition, organizations also may develop and maintain a better climate through, for example, the socialization and emotional contagion among employees (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Although the dominant evidence in the emotional labor literature suggests the negative outcomes for emotion regulation (mostly other-oriented emotion regulation), there are also findings that suggest otherwise. In a study that investigated dispatchers at the 911 center, Shuler and Sypher (2000) observed that dispatchers oftentimes seek emotion regulation experiences to enhance their sense of work identity. For the dispatchers, the achievement of emotional neutrality in their interactions with callers was a communicative accomplishment, something that helps others and something about which they are proud of themselves. Similar findings are seen in studies of supermarket clerks (Tolich, 1993) and criminal interrogators (Stenross & Kleinman, 1989) who sincerely enjoy the involved in their job, because it introduces variety and brings to their work something different from the task routine. Together, this suggests that emotion regulation may have positive implications for employees as well as organizations.

22 Thus, the overall empirical evidence as to the influence of emotional labor has been mixed. The consequences of emotional labor have been found to range from negative outcomes (e.g., Morris & Feldman, 1996b) to positive ones (cf., Callahan & McCollum, 2002). Consequently, many have examined potential moderators for explanations. For example, it has been shown and theorized that certain individual difference factors such as negative affectivity, organizational identification, and job involvement (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000) moderate the influence of emotional labor on individual outcomes. Sparse Evidence from Other Literatures Interestingly, the limited research in other literature on emotion regulation seems to show a more positive picture as to the influences of emotion regulation. For example, Huy (2002) reported from his field study that emotional balancing (which is essentially an emotion regulation process) served as an important mechanism that helps groups to effectively adapt to radical organizational changes. Elsewhere, Krone and Morgan (2000) investigated Chinese managers’ emotion regulation experiences and concluded that those managers routinely regulated their emotional experience and expressions, from which they learned important lessons and strengthened their capability to handle emotion laden issues. In the psychology literature, Gross and John (2003) also found that emotion regulation, when exercised properly, enhanced one’s affective well being, cognitive ability, and interpersonal liking. Making Sense of the Mixed Findings Several limitations of the current research approach seem to offer explanations for the mixed results. First, it could be that the construct domain of emotion regulation is not clearly defined. Specifically, different targets of emotion regulation (single emotional states, different emotional states experienced simultaneously, or different issues at hand), regulatory strategies (e.g., antecedent- vs. response-focused emotion regulation), as well as the purposes of emotion regulation (self-oriented regulation vs. other oriented regulation), tend to be examined simultaneously without a consideration of the different mechanisms involved. Second, it is likely that the service sector presents a context in which emotion regulation is particularly harmful for individuals, which may not always be true in other contexts. For example, in a service context, the employees are deprived of much of the autonomy that they might in dealing with customers. The employees are usually required to express only

23 positive emotions regardless of their momentary emotional state (e.g., being in a bad because of a family member’s death – see Tracy, 2000) or what is going on in the actual encounter (e.g., a customer is being unreasonable or rude – see Hochschild, 1983; Gatta, 2002). Thus, the employees are likely to feel a sense of lack of control and , which may further lead to more negative outcomes compared to situations where they have more discretion in deciding what emotions to express and how. Further, interactions in service encounters are oftentimes characterized with an impersonal, one-way emotional giving, rather than mutual emotional exchange that is seen more often in long-term relationships (Ashforth & Tomiuk, 2000). Customers are likely to perceive the emotional work provided by the employees as part of their work role and/or part of the product or services that they purchase (Witt, 1999). In long-term relationships, however, the interaction partners usually have a better opportunity to establish emotional attachment, which allows personal and mutual emotional exchanges to occur in the relationships. Himmelweit (1999) observed that, with the increase of the relationship tenure, paid caregivers oftentimes develop highly personalized attachment with their clients, and to a point, they may offer free help that goes beyond their work role. More importantly, they feel energized and authenticated by such help giving activities. Not surprisingly, Kruml and Geddes’ (2000a) found that such emotional attachment that service agents have with their customers was negatively associated with the experience of emotional dissonance. In this case, the payoffs of emotion regulation in interpersonal relationships may have restored an employee’s emotional resources, which, in turn, reduces the extent that emotional dissonance negatively influences one’s attitudes and performance (cf., Grandey, 2003). Therefore, it is likely that emotion regulation carries very different meanings for, and has very different impacts on, individuals who are primarily engaged in service encounters, compared to those who are involved in rather long-term work relationships, as is common in the relationships among co-workers. Finally, in terms of the mechanisms through which emotion regulation influences work- related outcomes, an over-emphasis on the intrapersonal process may have omitted important interpersonal dynamics in emotion regulation. It has been argued that emotional dissonance is not the sole mechanism through which emotion regulation has its influences, rather, the interpersonal process plays a significant role (Cote & Morgan, 2002). Cote and Morgan (2000)

24 argued that the display of emotions by a focal person convey important information to the interaction partner and induces affective and behavioral responses accordingly, which, in turn, influences the attitudes and behaviors of the focal person. In a field study, they found that upward emotion regulation (i.e., trying to display positive emotions) was positively related to job satisfaction and negatively associated with intent to quit (Cote & Morgan, 2000). Based on their findings, Cote and Morgan (2002) argued that it is important to distinguish the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation. They contended that prior research on emotion regulation has over emphasized the intrapersonal consequences of emotion regulation and insufficiently considered the interpersonal context in which individuals regulate their emotions. They suggested that a social interaction view of emotion, which allows the consideration of the impact of emotion regulation on other persons and their responses, is likely to provide a better understanding of the consequences of emotion regulation. In other words, emotion regulation does not occur in a social vacuum, rather, one’s emotion regulation behaviors are likely to be observed, interpreted, and reacted upon by others in social interactions. Importantly, such reactions influence both one’s subjective experiences of emotion regulation, as either rewarding or frustrating, and its social outcomes, for example, others’ liking and trust. Zapf and colleagues (1999) suggested, based on the literature on the affiliation motive, that emotion regulation in social interactions may satisfy affiliation, status, and recognition needs. They argued that, in many cases, emotion regulation contributes to a social situation with positive consequences for the individual concerned. For example, positive emotions expressed usually generate reciprocal positive emotions in the interaction partner. This positive feedback from others will, in turn, contribute to one’s satisfaction and sense of identity. Thus, in terms of theoretical development, it seems that the inconsistent findings in the literature may be better explained by distinguishing between the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation. Summary This chapter presented a review of the current emotion regulation literature. It is evident that the state of emotion regulation research in the organizational setting has just started to emerge, and therefore, a lot still needs to be done. A comprehensive model of emotion regulation in organizations is yet to be proposed, and the theoretical links among variables need to be empirically tested.

25 In the next chapter, building on previous research and social psychology theories of emotion, a process model of emotion regulation in organizations is presented, in which antecedents, moderators, mediators, and consequences of emotion regulation are explored.

26 CHAPTER THREE MODEL AND HYPOTHESES In this chapter, a process model of emotion regulation in organizations is presented, and the relevant hypotheses are developed. In the model, the situational, as well as individual difference factors are examined as antecedents of emotion regulation. In terms of the process of emotion regulation, both intrapersonal and interpersonal mechanisms are examined. The moderators (i.e., emotion regulator strategies, political skill) and mediators (i.e., emotional dissonance, peer perceived authenticity, peer liking, peer trust, and social support) also are to be examined. This process is proposed to lead to the consequences of emotion regulation, which include subjective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance (See Figure 1). The rest of the chapter discusses relevant research on the variables in the model and delineates the expected relationships among them. Antecedents of Emotion Regulation Regulation of emotions at work is a very complex task that involves the influence of numerous external factors such as organizational factors, the immediate interactional context, and dispositional characteristics of individuals (Lord & Harvey, 2002). Each of these factors is examined below. Organizational Factors: Display rules Individuals’ behaviors reflect the influences of situations (Davis-Blake & Pfeiffer, 1989; House et al., 1996; Olson & Zanna, 1993). A critical defining characteristic of the situation that organizational members face is the organization’s affective environment, which is partly reflected in the display rules of the organization. Display rules refer to norms about which emotions an individual should express in certain situations (Ekman, 1972; Hochschild, 1983). Display rules are one of the ways that emotions are regulated in organizations (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Cropanzano and colleagues (2004) proposed three reasons why organizations impose display rules: to promote customer satisfaction, to maintain internal harmony, and to enhance employee well being. Customer satisfaction and altruism remain the most commonly examined motives for organizations to promote certain display rules (e.g., Hochschild, 1983; Pugh, 2001; Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988; Tsai, 2001; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). More recently, emotional display rules have been identified as being a positive influence on employee’s well being. For example, Shuler and Sypher (2000) did a qualitative study at a

27 dispatch center and concluded that the emotional display rules (i.e., detached concern) served the purpose of enhancing employees’ identification with their work role and promoted their general well being. Some also have found that the requirement to display positive emotions and to be sensitive toward the emotion of others was positively correlated with individuals’ sense of personal accomplishment (Zapf, Seifert, Schmutte, Mertini, & Holz, 2001). Display rules can range from implicit (e.g., in the form of unspoken expectations) to explicit (e.g., written policies for employees). Implicit display rules are usually reinforced through informal socialization (cf., Martin et al., 2000). Organizations that have strong display rules, in contrast, have systematic human resource efforts, such as selection, formal socialization, training, and reward and punishment systems, to foster the desirable emotional expressive behaviors of their employees (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). In such organizations, the display rules are oftentimes explicitly written in the organizations’ official archives such as strategic vision, policy, and training manuscripts, and are well institutionalized through socialization (Gatta, 2002; Hochschild, 1983; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). Thus, display rules enhance employees’ perceived needs to regulate emotions (Pugh, 2002). Consequently, in an organization that has strong display rules, with the repeated reinforcement, employees are more likely to perceive the organizational expectations in terms of emotional expressions. Strong display rules also may foster reciprocity in interpersonal interactions among employees. In other words, a more controlled way of emotional expression and communication may generate positive emotional exchange in which individuals show more consideration and understanding of each others’ emotions (cf., Collins, 1981). Thus, Hypothesis 1: The strength of display rules is positively related to the frequency that individuals regulate their emotions at work. Interaction Context: Status Emotion regulation is likely to be influenced by the specific context that the individual faces. For example, it has been found that individuals are more likely to regulate their emotions when they are aware of the presence of others (Ekman, 1972), or when they are expecting social interactions (Erber, Wegner, & Therriault, 1996). One of the most relevant issues when examining emotions in interpersonal interactions seems to be one’s status. This includes both one’s social status at work in general, and one’s relative status (as indicated by formal ranking) to one’s interaction partners.

28 Emotions are closely related to power and influence (Kemper, 1984). It has been argued that emotions are a direct function of one’s relative power and status (Clark, 1990; Kemper, 1984, 1990). Specifically, an increase in power and status leads to positive emotions, and a decrease leads to negative emotions. Emotions also serve as an indicator of one’s status and power. For example, there are usually very different emotional display rules for the powerful and the powerless. People of high status in organizations oftentimes have more freedom in expressing their real feelings, while those of lower status have to keep their emotions in check (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1996a). In high power distance cultures, such as Japan, bosses are found to routinely express negative emotions to their subordinates, while subordinates are expected to show positive emotions, and hide their negative ones, when interacting with the boss (Matsumoto, 1991). Therefore, it is likely that people of higher status will perceive less frequently the need to regulate their emotions, comparing to those of lower status. To date, however, the relationship between status and emotion regulation has not been empirically tested. Thus, Hypothesis 2: Social status is negatively related to the frequency that individuals regulate their emotions at work. Rafaeli and Sutton (1987) proposed that the immediate context in which employees and customers interact more closely governs and constrains the expressed emotions in the course of transactions than general display rules put forth by the organization. Thus, it is expected that, not only one’s general social status, but also one’s relative status as compared to the individuals with whom one interacts most frequently, will influence one’s tendency to regulate emotions. Thus, Hypothesis 3: The relative status, as compared to the focal person, of individuals’ primary interaction partner at work is positively related to individuals’ frequency of emotion regulation at work. Individual Differences: Emotional awareness Emotional awareness refers to an individual’s tendency to be aware and understand his or her own and other people’s feelings. Emotional awareness is a critical element of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey et al., 1993). There are systematic individual differences in the maturity with which feelings are processed (Lane, Quinlan, Schwartz, Walker, & Zeitlin, 1990; Larsen, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1995, 1997; Salovey et al., 1993). Individuals with high emotional awareness are better able to discriminate among different

29 emotions, to label them, to process the information the emotional states convey, and ultimately, to draw upon them to guide one’s behaviors (Gardner, 1983; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). An individual who can distinguish among discrete emotions also are able to accurately attribute their emotions to the exact sources, and therefore, better able to identify and solve the problems of concern (Feldman Barrett & Gross, 2001; George, 2000). Emotional recognition, thus, serves important adaptation purposes for individuals’ personal and social lives. The ability to understand other people’s feelings is another aspect of emotional awareness. Such ability allows individuals to understand others emotionally, and provides emotional consoling and assistance to others when needed. Such understanding and support will, in turn, facilitate positive interpersonal relationships. It has been found that the ability to recognize the emotions of others generally predicts positive outcomes at work, such as better peer ratings of performance (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). Emotional awareness is also an important prerequisite for emotion regulation (Feldman Barrett & Gross, 2001; Parrott & Spackman, 2000). An inability to recognize emotional expressions hinders individuals from accurately guiding their behavior in response to others’ emotions (Porter & Samovar, 1998). Thus, Hypothesis 4: Emotional awareness is positively related to individuals’ frequency of emotion regulation at work. Consequences of Emotion Regulation The Intrapersonal Mechanism: Emotional Dissonance As discussed earlier in chapter two, emotional dissonance is by far the most frequently discussed psychological consequences of emotion regulation in the management literature (Morris & Feldman, 1996b). Emotional dissonance occurs when one expresses the appropriate emotions prescribed by the organizational display rules that are inconsistent with their inner feelings. Emotional dissonance has been argued to be an inevitable outcome when one tries to express organizationally required emotions (Hochschild, 1983; Mumby & Putnam, 1992), which further leads to emotional exhaustion (Abraham, 1998, 1999; Hochschild, 1983), a state of depleted energy caused by excessive emotional demands at work (Maslach, 1982). Emotional dissonance has been consistently linked with a variety of negative work- related outcomes. Emotional dissonance was positively associated with emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction among workers from a variety professions, such as waiter and waitress

30 (Adelmann, 1995), members of debt collection agencies, a military recruiting battalion, and a nursing association (Morris & Feldman, 1996b). Some have argued for a mediating role of emotional dissonance between emotional regulation and emotional exhaustion. Specifically, it is not expressing organizationally desired emotions itself, but an individual’s experiences of emotional dissonance when doing so, that makes emotional regulation problematic (Morris & Feldman, 1997). The Interpersonal Mechanism: Perceived Authenticity and Liking Why is the interpersonal mechanism important? Increasingly, emotion regulation has been viewed as a social process, one that occurs in the context of social interactions and relationships (Campos, Campos, & Barrett, 1989; Cote & Morgan, 2002; Walden & Smith, 1997). Besides influencing one’s own emotional states, emotion regulation also influences others emotions, as well as their attitudinal and behavioral reactions to the focal person (Keltner & Kring, 1998). Several social psychology theories of emotion suggest that the interpersonal mechanism is important to consider when examining the consequences of emotion regulation. First, the social constructionist view of emotion asserts that emotions are socially constructed (Averill, 1980; Thoits, 1989). It is argued that social factors play important roles in determining the experiences and expressions of emotions. According to this perspective, individuals make sense of emotions through their understanding of the social environment in which the emotions are experienced. Therefore, individuals’ emotional experiences, and the associated meaning, are oftentimes subject to external influences (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Hochschild, 1990; Kemper, 1990; Thoits, 1989). Thus, when a certain emotion regulatory behavior is carried out, the individual will not only infer from his own emotional state as to whether he has done it right or how well he has done, but he also will observe the reactions of others’ who are involved in the situation. While positive reactions may give rise to one’s sense that he has done the right thing, negative reactions are likely to make one feel bad, which subsequently discourages similar acts. Second, from the functionalist view of emotion, besides serving the function of individual adaptation (Plutchik, 1980; Scherer, 1984; Frijda, 1986), emotions serve important social functions (Keltner & Kring, 1998). Emotions facilitate the interpersonal communication process (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998), and help to build, maintain, and shape interpersonal relationships (Bowlby, 1979; Waldron, 1994, 2000). Emotional expression and its absence help others to

31 know one’s emotions, attitudes, and intentions (Ekman, 1993; Fridlund, 1992; Knutson, 1996). Such understanding will in turn help coordinate social interactions (Keltner & Haidt, 1999). For example, expressions of anger (or suppression of it, when detected by others) may help others to understand one’s perception and interpretation of the situation, which initiates a process in which individuals negotiate interpersonal conflict and reached a shared understanding of what is right or wrong (White, 1990). Thus, one’s emotion regulatory effort in social interactions may influence others’ perception and subsequent reactions to the focal person. Finally, the of social exchange (Lawler, 2001) provides interesting insights as to the social nature of emotion and emotion regulation. According to the theory, social interactions induce individuals’ positive and negative emotions, and individuals tend to attribute their own emotions to certain repeatedly occurring exchange relationships in which they have been involved. Therefore, they are more likely to be attracted to interactions (and thereby the relationships) that induce positive emotions. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that individuals will monitor their own emotional behaviors in a socially desirable way in order to generate favorable emotional exchanges in their social relationships. In the workplace, there are usually complex resource interdependencies among co-workers. Oftentimes, employees depend on others for critical resources to obtain personal or organizational goals. Rafaeli and Sutton (1989, p.3), for example, provided an interesting example of such critical interdependency: “The waitresses have to be nice to the bartenders because we need our drinks fast. The bartender has to be nice to us because if our customers complain it is his fault. The cooks are the least dependent on others, but they have to be nice to the waitresses to get the secret drinks we bring them from the bar.” Thus, according to the affect theory of social exchange, this complex interdependency should provide strong motives for individuals to regulate their emotions in ways that generate favorable social outcomes. Taken together, the above theories suggest that an examination of the social interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation is essential in order to obtain a full understanding of the phenomenon. In this study, perceived authenticity and liking from peers are examined as critical mediators for the emotion regulation-outcome relationships. Each is discussed in detail below. Perceived authenticity. Perceived authenticity is defined in this study as a peer’s evaluation as to the extent to which the focal person’s emotional behaviors are a reflection of

32 one’s true or genuine self (cf., Ashforth & Tomiuk, 2000). When one expresses emotions in public, such expressions are subject to others’ perception, evaluation, and judgment. Authentic and inauthentic emotional expressions are likely to be perceived differently. For example, it has been found that people can recognize authentic smiles, and have less positive reactions to inauthentic ones when compared to authentic ones (Ekman, Friesen, O’Sullivan, 1988; Frank, Ekman, & Friesen, 1993; Surakka & Hietanen, 1998). In many service organizations, due to the fact that many customers are often able to discriminate between authentic and inauthentic emotions, it is expected for the service providers not only to display prescribed emotions but to do so with sincerity (Erickson & Wharton, 1997). Authentic emotional expressions can be distinguished from inauthentic ones, partly because that different communication channels of emotional expressions are different in terms of their levels of controllability. Ekman and Friesen (1969) proposed a controllability-leakage hierarchy of channels of communication. They argued that the nonverbal channels, ranging from the , vocal tones, to body movement, differ in terms of the degree to which they can be intentionally controlled. Facial expression is the most controllable channel, followed by vocal tones, and then body movement. They suggested that while facial expressions can usually be monitored according to the expressive needs of the focal person, vocal tones and body movement are more difficult to control and are likely to “leak” unintended affective information in interpersonal interactions. Thus, it is likely that, compared with authentic emotional expressions, inauthentic emotional expressions are less successful at conveying the desired affective information through the more leaky channels. Rather, they are likely to convey inconsistent affective information to the observers, which in turn gives rise to unfavorable emotional exchanges. Perceived authenticity plays an important role in determining the consequences of emotion regulation. For example, Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) argued that a key factor that determines whether emotional regulation generates favorable service outcomes is the perceived authenticity of the service providers’ emotional expressions. To date, however, there is only limited evidence as to the role perceived authenticity plays in the emotion regulation process. For example, one’s self perception of inauthenticity at work was associated with depressed mood among bank and hospital employees (Erickson & Wharton, 1997). Such negative perception of self is also likely to apply to evaluations of others when inauthenticity is detected.

33 It is important to note that because work relationships are typically personal and extend over time, it is possible that co-workers have accumulated a working knowledge as to the emotional reaction patterns of the focal person, which helps to more accurately assess the authenticity of the focal person’s emotional behaviors. Thus, in long-term interpersonal relationships, as compared to service encounters with customers that are of short duration, an individual’s inauthenticity is even more likely to be detected by peers. Liking. Perceived liking has been a construct of interests in the literature of communication (see Collins & Miller, 1994 for a review), organizational politics (e.g., Wayne & Liden, 1995), leadership (e.g., Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), as well as emotion regulation (e.g., Gross & John, 2003). Perceived liking has most frequently been examined as an independent variable, and has been linked with self-disclosure and trust (cf., Collins & Miller, 1994), better performance ratings from supervisor (e.g., Wayne & Liden, 1995), and better leader-member exchange relationships. Perceived liking also has been examined as a dependent variable. For example, a survey study by Gross and John (2003) reported that individuals who use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategies tend to be better liked by their peers. There is also evidence that individuals tend to self-disclose more to those whom they like (Collins & Miller, 1994). The Moderating Role of Emotion Regulatory Strategy and Political Skill Emotion regulatory strategy: Reappraisal vs. suppression. Reappraisal, as an antecedent- focused emotion regulatory strategy, and suppression, as a response-focused emotion regulatory strategy, recently have received much research attention (e.g., Grandey, 2000; Gross & John, 2003; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Reappraisal refers to one’s effort to change the cognitive perspective of the situation. Suppression refers to one’s manipulation of his or her emotional expressions. The differential consequences of each strategy are discussed below. Emotional dissonance occurs when one’s emotional expressions do not correspond with his or her inner feelings. In the case of suppression, since the focus is on expressed emotions (Gross, 1998a), and one’s inner feelings are left unchanged, inconsistency between the two is likely to occur. Conversely, in the case of reappraisal, since the focus is on one’s internal emotional state (Gross, 1998a), and the expressed emotions are left untouched as a natural response to one’s real feelings, the congruence between expressed and felt emotions is likely to

34 be high. Therefore, when one changes his or her cognitive perspectives, rather than simply manipulating the expressions, emotional dissonance is less likely to occur. Thus, Hypothesis 5a: Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance, such that individuals who tend to use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategy are less likely to experience emotional dissonance than others. Hypothesis 5b: Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance, such that individuals who tend to suppress their emotions are more likely to experience emotional dissonance than others. Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) proposed that the latitude for self-expression in emotion regulation should be positively related to one’s personal well being because it makes emotion regulation a reflection of one’s identity. Because antecedent-focused emotion regulation occurs at the early stage of the emotion regulation process, individuals should have a wider variety of ways available to manage their emotional experiences, most likely ways that are consistent with their identity. In contrast, for response-focused emotion regulation that occurs near the end of the process, what is left to control is only the expression of emotions. Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) proposed that when the emotion regulatory behavior is inconsistent with one’s salient identity, which is likely the case in surface acting, it may promote a sense of inauthentic self. Brotheridge and Lee (2002) found that suppression is negatively related to one’s self-perception of authenticity, whereas deep acting is positively related to one’s self-perception of authenticity. It’s likely such effects also exist when it comes to others’ perception of authenticity. In a study of university administrative assistants, Grandey (2003) found that the degree to which one’s emotional expressions in service encounters are rated by co-workers as friendly and warm, which suggests a high level of authenticity (assuming co-workers are able to detect inauthentic expressions of peers), was positively related to the degree one tries to feel the emotions he or she expresses (i.e., reappraisal). Response-focused emotion regulation, in contrast, is likely to be associated with inauthenticity. For example, in Hochschild’s (1983) study of flight attendants, passengers were observed to over the flight attendants’ acts of faking a friendly voice. Similarly, a few other studies also suggest that customers can detect service providers’ inauthentic emotional expressions, which lead to poor perceptions of service quality (Grove & Fisk, 1989; Mann, 1999).

35 Antecedent-focused emotion regulatory strategies also are likely to take place with deeper understanding of the situation. For example, when one reappraises, he or she is likely to put more thought into the immediate circumstances and adjust his or her emotional behaviors accordingly. Such behaviors are, thus, more likely to reflect personal style, their understanding, and sincere concern about the target. Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) proposed that the more one “personalizes” certain display rules, that is, to modify the rules to reflect one’s identity and to make emotion regulation one’s self expression, the more likely the emotional behaviors are to be perceived as sincere. Thus, Hypothesis 6a: Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity, such that the emotional behaviors of individuals who tend to use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategy are more likely to be perceived as authentic than others. Hypothesis 6b: Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity, such that the emotional behaviors of individuals who tend to suppress their emotions are perceived as less authentic than others. Emotional expressive behavior plays an important role in facilitating social interactions (Campos, Mumme, Kermoian, & Campos, 1994; Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Keltner & Kring, 1998). Emotions serve as critical mechanisms through which social meanings are conveyed. For example, anger indicates an individual’s perception that he or she has been unfairly deprived of something (Lazarus, 1991), and therefore, signals the target person to retreat from the occupancy of the things that are “mine.” In contrast, tears shed with friends when they are in indicate , love, and caring. Thus, emotions convey critical information as to the emotional state and intention of the senders. It is through the delivery of such social meanings that emotions become a powerful tool to regulate others’ emotions and behaviors. Because suppression tends to decrease both negative and positive emotional expressive behaviors, it may hinder the manifestation of important social signals that would otherwise be available to the interaction partners (Gross, 2002). In addition, considering the ongoing cognitive resources required by suppression, suppression may often distract the individuals and make them less responsive to their interaction partners (Gross, 2002). Thus, the lack of emotional cues, together with a lack of attentiveness to others’ emotional cues, is likely to contribute to a lower level of peer liking for individuals who tend to suppress emotions, compared to those who reappraise situations. Thus,

36 Hypothesis 7a: Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and liking, such that individuals who tend to use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategy are better liked by their peers than others. Hypothesis 7b: Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and liking, such that individuals who tend to suppress their emotions are less well liked by their peers than others. Political skill. The effectiveness of emotion regulation is influenced by the individuals’ emotion regulation skills and capabilities (Pugh, 2002; Wegner & Bargh, 1998). The more skillful individuals are in regulating their emotions, the more likely they are to use such skills. Individuals who are good at emotion regulation are able to adjust their emotion regulatory strategies flexibly and effectively according to the situations. On the one hand, they can monitor their own emotions better. On the other hand, their emotion regulatory behaviors are also more likely than others, who do not possess the same level of skill, to generate desirable results, for example, positive emotional reactions from others. Such interpersonal reactions will, therefore, derive intrinsic and reinforce future emotion regulatory behaviors. To date, there has been little research done on factors that influence people’s ability to flexibly regulate emotions according to the situational needs. One such factor is identified as one’s political skill. As discussed earlier, political skill refers to the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives (Perrewé et al., 2004). Political skill is characterized by the social perceptiveness and the ability to adjust one’s behaviors to the situational needs (Ferris et al., 2005). To date, no explicit discussion has been offered as to what happens to one’s inner emotional world when one has high political skill and has successfully engaged in political activities. It is likely, however, that individuals with high political skill are less likely to experience emotional dissonance when they regulate their emotions. The reasons are two-fold. On the one hand, due to their social adeptness and their ability to flexibly react to different situations, individuals with high political skill may perceive a larger repertoire of behaviors that can effectively address the situational needs. Thus, other things being equal, individuals with high political skill are more likely to choose among behaviors that best present their true feelings than the less politically skilled counterparts.

37 On the other hand, this also may have to do with the way individuals with high political skill experience the sense of self. It has been argued that individuals may not have only one fixed definition of self; rather, they may constitute their sense of self in relation to their surrounding social environment (Tracey, 2000; Wouters, 1989). However, the ability to make such transitions may depend on individual characteristics. It is likely that individuals with high political skill will feel more comfortable traveling between multiple selves in different situations, and therefore, are better able to adjust their own emotional experiences by shaping their sense of self in a manner that is congruent with institutional goals. Taken together, I propose the following: Hypothesis 8: Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance, such that emotion self regulation is less likely to be associated with emotional dissonance for individuals high on political skill. Ferris and colleagues (1999) posited that political skill is an interpersonal style that “combines social astuteness with the ability to emote well, and otherwise demonstrate situationally appropriate behavior in a disarmingly charming and engaging manner that inspires , trust, sincerity, and genuineness.” Individuals with high political skill view it as very important to show genuine interest in other people, and they try to be sincere in what they say or do (Ferris, Treadway, Kolodinsky et al., 2005). It is likely that such emphasis on sincerity and genuineness also reflects the way they regulate their emotions. In fact, a central component of political skill is the ability to exert social influences. Such influences are unlikely without others’ perceived trustworthiness of the focal person, which may be significantly facilitated by his or her authentic emotional behaviors. Thus, Hypothesis 9: Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and peer perceived authenticity, such that the emotional behaviors of individuals with high political skill are more likely to be perceived as authentic than those of others. Individuals with high political skill are perceptive to people’s intentions and needs, and they are likely to react to others based on such knowledge in ways that generate benefits for both self and others. In addition, individuals with high political skill sincerely enjoy interpersonal interactions, viewing them as opportunities rather than threats (Perrewé, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony, 2000). They tend to spend a lot of time networking with people and establishing friendships and connections (Ferris et al., 2005). This proactive interpersonal attitude allows them the opportunity to promote favorable perceptions of themselves by others in their network

38 (Perrewé et al., 2000). Thus, when regulating their own emotions, they are better able to perceive, understand, and consider the feelings and needs of other persons involved in the social setting, and express their emotional needs in ways that are acceptable to others. This, in turn, is likely to promote peers’ liking. Hypothesis 10: Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and peer liking, such that emotional behaviors of individuals with high political skill are better liked by others than those with low political skill. Emotional Dissonance - Job Related Outcomes Affective well being. By nature, emotional dissonance is an aversive state that leads to symptoms indicating a lower level of emotional harmony and affective well being. When experiencing emotional dissonance, individuals feel isolated from the true self and experience emotional tension (Hochschild, 1983). Thus, consistent with previous research (Abraham, 1998; Andrew & Feldman, 1996; Morris & Feldman, 1996b), the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 11: Emotional dissonance is negatively related to affective well being. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been defined as the degree to which employees have a positive affective orientation towards their jobs (Locke, 1976). Although emotion has been viewed as closely related to job satisfaction, only recently has job satisfaction been explicitly conceptualized as having an emotional dimension (Weiss, 2002). Consistent with this view, it has been theorized that one’s emotional experiences at work influence one’s job satisfaction (Arvey et al., 1998; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which has found support in an empirical study (Fisher, 2000). Arvey and colleagues proposed that the fit between the affective demand of one’s job and one’s emotionality promotes positive attitudes (Arvey et al., 1998). Similarly, Rafaeli and Sutton (1987) suggested that emotional harmony is an indicator of good fit between person and environment. Emotional dissonance, however, reflects a mismatch between one’s emotional tendency and one’s job requirement. They argued that emotional dissonance is a form of person- role conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), which occurs when one has to do things that are against his or her better judgment. Since role conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction (Jackson & Schuler, 1985), emotional dissonance also should be linked with job satisfaction.

39 In addition, emotional dissonance is likely to induce an attribution process in which individuals make sense of their emotional states. Hochschild (1983) suggested that if individuals experience emotional dissonance, they may blame themselves and feel hypocritical. Similarly, individuals are also likely to blame the organization for the dissonance that they are experiencing. Both may contribute to a decreased level of job satisfaction (Zapf et al., 1999). Cumulative evidence from previous findings supports a negative relationship between emotional dissonance and job satisfaction (Abraham, 1998, 1999; Morris & Feldman, 1996b; Rutter & Fielding, 1988). Specifically, it has been found that emotional dissonance was positively associated with emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction among customer service representatives from a variety of industries (Abraham, 1998), and among members of debt collection agencies, a military recruiting battalion and a nursing association (Morris & Feldman, 1996b). Rutter and Fielding (1988) also found that the need to suppress emotions was significantly inversely correlated with job satisfaction. Abraham (1998) found that emotional dissonance explain approximately 10% of job satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 12: Emotional dissonance is negatively related to job satisfaction. Job performance. Morris and Feldman (1996b) suggested that failure to internalize organizational display rules may lead to poor perceived job performance and higher turnover or involuntary job loss. As a form of person-role conflict, emotional dissonance is likely to be associated with a low level of role internalization, and therefore, a low level of perceived job performance. In addition, like cognitive dissonance, emotional dissonance represents an aversive state that individuals typically seek to avoid or escape (Richman, 1988). In the process of trying to regain the emotional balance and harmony, they need to either readjust their inner feelings or their emotional expressions, both consume additional psychological and cognitive resources (Gross, 1998a), which may serve as a disruption to task performance. Moreover, individuals who experience emotional dissonance have been found to become increasingly impaired in their ability to express their true feelings (Ekman et al., 1988). Given that effective emotional communication serves important functions in social relationships (Keltner & Kring, 1998), this inability of emotional honesty will, in turn, impair one’s capability to be understood, and further, decrease one’s peer perceived performance. To date, there are no empirical studies that directly examine the relationship between emotional dissonance and job performance. Indirect evidence is seen in studies that found

40 surface acting (which has been theorized as more closely related to emotional dissonance than deep acting) was negatively associated with peer-rated customer service quality (Grandey, 2003). The accumulative evidence regarding the significant positive relationship between emotional dissonance and burnout (e.g., Abramham, 1998; Zapf et al., 2001) also lends support to the argument that emotional dissonance serves as a trigger to stress which undermines job performance. Thus, Hypothesis 13: Emotional dissonance is negatively related to job performance. Perceived Authenticity and Liking - Trust Interpersonal trust has been defined as the extent to which a person is confident in, and willing to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another. Trust is based on the expectations that others in the relationship “will not take advantage of me” (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975, p. 497). Interpersonal trust has both cognitive and affective foundations (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Lewis & Wiegert, 1985; McAllister, 1995; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Each dimension is discussed below, respectively, with an emphasis on its relationship with perceived authenticity and liking. In terms of the cognition dimension, ability, benevolence, and integrity have been theorized as the antecedents of trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Ability refers to “the group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717). When one’s emotion regulatory behavior is perceived as authentic, he or she is likely to be perceived more positively in terms of his or her ability to handle emotional and interpersonal issues than those insincere counterparts. This is so because being able to control one’s impulse and being sincere reflect one’s emotional maturity. As an example, in a group, when a person successfully controls his or her anger towards another member and instead shows sincere concern to the member’s well being, others are likely to perceive this person as being capable of handling difficult social interactions, and having loving and caring characteristics. Such an observation is then likely to contribute to others’ trust in this person. Benevolence is “the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 718). Perceived authenticity is likely to promote perceived benevolence since being authentic can be seen as a sign that one is not holding back anything that may hurt others. Take the previous example, when one shows

41 concern towards another person’s well being and this is perceived as sincere rather than pretending, others are likely to consider this as being altruistic rather than being driven by selfish motives. Integrity refers to the extent to which the trustor perceived that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995). Being true to self and others is a favorable individual characteristic that is valued by almost every society and . Therefore, authenticity should lead others to perceive integrity in the focal person. Take together, perceived authenticity should facilitate the development of interpersonal trust. Consistent with this argument, it has been found that when authentic interpersonal care and concern are demonstrated and perceived, trust is more likely to be developed (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986). Experimental research also suggests that perceived inauthenticity may produce fewer positive reactions in the observers (Frank et al., 1993), whereas affective congruence (e.g., consistency between facial expression and vocal message) results in more positive ratings of leaders by their subordinates (Newcombe & Ashkanasy, 2002). Hypothesis 14: Perceived authenticity is positively related to interpersonal trust. In terms of the affect dimension, emotions are proposed to be closely related to trust (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Jones & George, 1998; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995; Rempel et al., 1985). It has been argued that emotional communications in interpersonal relationships influence how people evaluate the emotional quality and level of trust in the relationships (Jones & George, 1998). For example, when experiencing positive or negative emotions, people are likely to use such emotional experiences to infer their attitudes toward the interaction partner, and evaluate the relationship quality according to the affective quality during the interactions (Jones & George, 1998; See also Lawler, 2001). From the affect-as-information perspective (Bless & Schwarz, 1999; Clore, 1994; Schwarz, 1990), people frequently use their emotions as a basis for evaluative judgments of events or conditions. Research has consistently found that people who are in positive emotional states evaluate other individuals more favorably (Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Staw & Barsade, 1993). Thus, experiencing positive emotions such as liking during the interpersonal interactions with a certain person may lead the individual to perceive a higher level of

42 trustworthiness toward the person (Jones & George, 1998). The influence of liking on trust may be even stronger when the intensity of such feelings increases, since in such situations, other non-affective sources of information may be increasingly ignored (Clore, Schwarz, & Conway, 1994). Moreover, liking also may influence one’s motivation to trust (Williams, 2001). As a positive emotion, liking for a particular person enhances individuals’ desire to approach and form connections with that person (cf., Fredrickson, 1998; Isen & Baron, 1991), which may allow more opportunities for individuals to know, understand and establish an affective bond with each other. This may give rise to caring and benevolent behaviors and further contribute to trust (McAllister, 1995). Taken together, as a positive emotional state and an indicator for positive interpersonal relationship, liking is likely to promote interpersonal trust. Thus, Hypothesis 15: Liking is positively related to interpersonal trust. Trust - Social Support Social support has long been argued as being influential in the stress coping process (e.g., Beehr, 1985; Beehr, King, & King, 1990). Social support has generally been discussed along two dimensions, emotional support and instrumental support (Beehr, 1985; Fenlason & Beehr, 1994). Emotional support includes such behaviors as the provision of sympathy, caring, and listening. Instrumental support refers to behaviors that provide direct assistance to others, such as giving money, doing others’ work, etc. Supervisor and co-worker support are two types of support in the workplace that are most frequently proposed by stress researchers as potentially helpful in alleviating the negative influences of occupational stress (Beehr, 1985). Trust plays an important role in social relationships (Lewis &Weigert, 1985; Zucker, 1986). Research in trust has consistently supported the notion that trust facilitates cooperative behaviors (Arrow, 1974; Hosmer, 1995; Ouchi, 1979; Zucker, 1986). Support for this argument has been found from various disciplines at multiple levels of analysis. For example, in the marketing literature, trust has been linked with customer loyalty and cooperation (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998). In a study of R&D researchers, Bouty (2000) found that exchanges of strategic resources only occurred in social relationships that are characterized with mutual trust. In addition, trust may be a way that people use to build and maintain social relationships (Blau, 1964). For example, the expression of trust may generate positive feelings in the

43 interaction partner, and therefore, yield positive reactions. Expression of , in contrast, may destroy personal relationships (Williamson, 1993). It has been argued that in relationships that are characterized with high levels of affect- based trust, individuals behave in a similar way as those in communal relationships (Clark et al., 1986), in which people tend to take on their partner’s problems as their own, keep track of the partner’s needs, and provide help or assistance accordingly (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; McAllister, 1995). It also has been proposed that, with the increased awareness of peers’ needs, affect-based trust also leads to a high level of interpersonal citizenship behaviors (McAllister, 1995). Both arguments received strong support from McAllister’s (1995) empirical studies of managers and professionals. In addition, trust is also associated with a high level of self-disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994), which makes it more likely for peers to be aware of opportunities to provide social support. For example, self-disclosure regarding the lack of needed skill to accomplish a certain task (help seeking behaviors) is more likely to occur in high trust context. This, in turn, helps others to become aware of one’s needs (Andersen & Williams, 1996), and provide support accordingly. Taken together, Hypothesis 16: Trust is positively related to social support. Social Support - Job Related Outcomes Social support is characterized by a deeper level of communication (Bheer et al, 1990; Fenlason & Beehr, 1994; Zellars & Perrewé, 2001). Fenlason and Beehr (1994) suggested that talking to others helps one to better cope with stressful situations at work, because it has therapeutic qualities and helps to release emotional tensions. Emotional support from peers in the form of listening, caring, and interpersonal consoling may help individuals regain their emotional balance in times of personal or organizational trauma (cf., Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius, & Kanov, 2002). Social support has been found to be negatively associated with psychological strain such as , , emotional exhaustion, and frustration (e.g., Beehr, 1995; Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murrary, 2000; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). The significant negative relationship between social support and occupational stress that has been consistently reported in the literature (e.g., Beehr & Drexler, 1986; Beehr et al., 2000; Beehr et al., 1990) also lends support to the argument that social support plays a role in elevating one’s affective well being at work. Thus,

44 Hypothesis 17: Social support is positively related to affective well being. To date, most studies on social support have focused on its relationships with stress and strain, with less attention given to one’s job attitudes and performance. However, there are reasons to believe that social support should have positive influences on these work related outcomes. In terms of job satisfaction, interpersonal relationship is an important aspect that contributes to one’s satisfaction with organizational life. Therefore, high-quality work relationships that are evident by a high level of social support from peers should be associated with job satisfaction. A main effect for supervisor and co-worker support on overall job satisfaction has been found in previous studies on bus drivers (Blau, 1981) and navy enlisted men (LaRocco & Jones, 1978). Beehr and Drexler (1986) also reported a significant canonical correlation between social support and job satisfaction among bank employees. Thus, Hypothesis 18: Social support is positively related to job satisfaction. Emotional support from peers in the form of listening, caring, and interpersonal consoling may help individuals to concentrate better on their work. Besides emotional support, social support also provides individuals with instrumental help, such as assistance in usage of new techniques, that contributes directly to task performance. Thus, social support not only allows more cognitive and emotional resources to be focused on the task, but also allows one to perform at his or her optimal level by getting necessary help from others. For example, in a study of door- to-door book dealers, Beehr and colleagues (2000) found moderate support for a positive relationship between social support and one’s job performance as rated by the manager. Accordingly, Hypothesis 19: Social support is positively related to job performance. Control Variables Several variables were included as control variables in this study because they may be influential in the proposed relationships among variables. General personality has been found to be significantly associated with one’s choices of emotion regulatory strategies (Gross & John, 2003). Because the close association between emotion self regulation and coping, one’s tendency to proactively react to problems and issues in life and work should have an influence on both the frequency one regulates emotions, and the strategies one choices. Thus, proactive personalit was included as a control variable in this study.

45 Social desirability was also included in the study as a control variable due to the concern that the respondents may perceive certain emotion-related constructs (e.g., reappraisal) as having more favorable implications than others (e.g., emotion self regulation, suppression, emotional dissonance). Gender has long been associated with emotionality (Gatta, 2002; Shields, 2002). In the realm of emotion regulation, it has been found that males are more likely to mask their emotions than do females (Gross & John, 1997). Probably due to the different socialization orientation for different gender roles (Shields, 2002), there also seem to be a wider range of emotions that are deemed appropriate for females than for males to display (Pugh, 2002). On the other hand, there is also evidence that females are more responsive to others’ emotional expressions (Hatfield et al., 1994). It is also possible that the reason for the so called “gendered work” (e.g., nurses, waitresses, child care) to be dominated by females is that they can regulate their emotions in a more efficient way. Given the relative lack of research on gender differences in emotion regulation and the complex nature of its influences, I make no specific predictions about how the expected relationships may differ for women and men. Rather, gender is included in the study as a control variable. Additionally, given the dyadic research design of the dissertation, the co-worker’s relationship, relationship tenure and relationship quality with the focal person were included as control variables for analysis, since it is likely that differential relative status of the individuals involved will both change the emotion regulatory behaviors of the focal person and influence how such behaviors are perceived, as argued previously in Proposition 3. In addition, the longer the relationship tenure and the better the co-worker knows the focal person, the more likely the co-worker will perceive the focal persons’ emotional behaviors more accurately. Finally, the study gathered data to control for age, race, education, work experience, and position to see if there are any cross-group differences in emotion self regulation. Summary In this chapter, a theoretical model of the antecedents, moderators, mediators, and consequences of emotion regulation is proposed based on the literature. It was argued that both organizational factors and individual differences influence individuals’ tendencies to regulate their emotions. As to the consequences of emotion regulation, extending the current literature’s focuses on the intrapersonal consequences of emotion regulation, the social implications of

46 emotion regulation are highlighted. Together, the intrapersonal and interpersonal mechanisms of emotion regulation are expected to provide a more complete picture as to the influences of emotion regulation to one’s work life, and thereof, help explain the seemingly conflicting findings in the literature with regard to the consequences of emotion regulation. A summary of hypotheses proposed is presented in Table 2.

47 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter provides a description of the methods used in this study. The data collection procedure, sample characteristics, measures used, the data analysis procedure, and the study results are presented. Participants and Procedures To date, the majority of empirical studies on emotion regulation have been conducted either in the service context, or as laboratory experiments in which mostly student samples were used. In order to advance the field’s understanding of emotion regulation in organizations, a field study using real employees as subjects was conducted to test specific linkages proposed in the model presented in this study. The study utilized a dyadic research design in which employee responses to a questionnaire was coded in order to match these responses to a co-worker evaluation of the employee. Thus, this study included two surveys. One survey was designed for employees whose emotional behaviors were examined (i.e., the focal person). Specifically, data were gathered on the following variables in order to test the hypotheses outlined in Chapter Three: display rules, interaction partner status, emotional awareness, social status, political skill, emotion self regulation, emotion regulatory strategy, emotional dissonance, affective well being, and job satisfaction. Additionally, the following demographic variables were gathered from the focal persons: age, gender, educational level, race, organizational tenure, and position. Also included in this survey were two additional control variables, social desirability and positive personality. In this survey, the focal person was asked to identify three colleagues (either his or her supervisor, subordinate, or co-worker) with whom he or she most frequently interacts at work. The matched survey was designed to be filled out by one of the three colleagues who were identified by the focal person. The following variables were gathered in this survey: peer perceived focal person political skill, peer perceived authenticity, peer perceived liking, peer trust, peer social support, and peer evaluated job performance. This survey also obtained the following demographic data of the co-worker as control variables: relationship with the focal person (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate), relationship tenure (i.e., the length of time the co-worker and the focal person have been working together), and relationship quality (i.e., the degree to which the co-worker knows the focal person well).

48 The Director of a hospice in the Northeast Florida region was contacted for permission to survey his employees. The hospice is a nonprofit organization that provides end-of-life care and services to the region. Patients are admitted only when their life expectancies are 12 months or less. The core services of the hospice are and symptom management for patients, and emotional and spiritual support for patients and their family. The hospice was chosen both because the willingness to participate in this survey, and because the assumption that a hospice is an “emotional place”. That is, it was expected that the frequency of emotional events should be higher in hospices as compared to other workplaces, and that the levels of general awareness and attentiveness to emotional issues should be higher among employees. A master list of employee contact information was obtained. Two rounds of surveys were conducted. In the first round, all the 605 employees were asked to participate voluntarily in the completion of a questionnaire in which they were instructed to answer questions regarding their emotions and work lives. Several steps were taken to encourage responses. First, three $50 rewards were offered based on a lucky draw from the respondents’ pool. Second, the contact person in the hospice, the director of the education institute affiliated with the hospice, sent out an email to all the employees two weeks after the survey packages were delivered to the employees, encouraging employees to respond. Third, follow up phone calls were made to 126 employees randomly selected from the list at about the same time the reminder email was sent by the contact person. A total of 140 people responded to the first survey, representing a response rate of 23%. In the second round, a matched survey was sent to one of the co-workers who were identified by the individuals who responded to the first survey. The co-workers to whom the surveys were sent were randomly selected from the three persons whom the focal person referred. This step was taken to ensure that a variety of relationship qualities were captured. Among the respondents, 57% indicated that they knew the focal person well or very well, and 36% knew the person relatively well. Another 8% of individuals indicated that they did not know the person well. To encourage responses to this matched survey, follow up phone calls were made to each potential respondent a week after the packages were delivered; a second copy of the survey was sent a month after the matched surveys were mailed, follow up phone calls were also made to each potential respondent who had yet to respond at this point of time. For those who chose not to participate in the study, a copy of the matched survey was sent to another

49 person that the focal person identified in their responses. Of the 140 persons who responded to the first survey, 5 left the company during the course of this research, 108 persons responded to the second survey, representing a response rate of 77%. The sample was primarily female (87.1%) and white (87.8%), with 8.6% African- American, 1.4% Asian, 0.7% Hispanic, 0.7% Native American, and another 0.7% who put themselves as of another race. The average age was 47 with a range of ages between 22 and 71. The average work experience was 234 months (or approximately 19 years) ranging from 9 months to 42 years. In regard to education, 92% of the respondents had at least some college level course work, with 22% and 27% having a university degree and a post graduate degree, respectively. Most of the respondents were professionals (49.3%) and non-supervisory employee (29.7%). Managerial positions were held by 20.3% of the sample. To determine the representativeness of the sample, we collected population statistics on age, gender, and race. The population of 605 consisted of 86% female, 69% Caucasian, with an average age of 46. Therefore, no noticeable difference exists between the sample and population, indicating non- response bias is not a major concern. Measures Since emotion regulation is a relatively new field of study, some of the constructs that are needed for testing the model in this study had to be created. Appendix 1 and 2 provide detailed information for each of the measures. The coefficient alpha internal consistency reliability estimate for each scale is presented in Table 3. Display rules. There are no existing measures for display rules that fit the purpose of the study, therefore, five items were created to assess the strength of emotional display rules in the organization. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agree or disagree with each of the statements using a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Higher scores indicate stronger display rules. Sample items include “There is a common understanding that certain emotions are not to be expressed in the organization.” and “Expressing strong emotions (positive or negative) at work is not perceived as appropriate.” Social status. Seven items created by Remiraz (2004) were adapted to assess the focal person’s self evaluation of their social status at work. A seven-point scale was utilized, with item responses ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). A higher number indicates higher social status. Sample items include “My colleagues value my competence.” and

50 “My colleagues respect my personal quality.” In addition, an abbreviated version of this scale, also adapted from Remiraz (2004), was included in the co-worker questionnaire to assess the peer evaluation of the focal person’s social status. This scale was composed of three items. A sample item is “This person is well respected at work.” Interaction partner status. Interaction partner status was measured by the relative status of the person with whom the respondent most frequently interacted at work was used as a second indicator of the focal person’s status. This is a categorical variable that has three levels, namely, supervisor, co-worker, and subordinate, which were coded as 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Emotional awareness. To measure a respondent’s level of emotional awareness, twelve items adapted from Schutte, Malouff, Hall et al. (1998) and Bagby, Parker, and Taylor (1994) were utilized to develop a two-dimensional measure. Seven of the items measure the respondent’s emotional self awareness, and the other five items measure his or her awareness of others’ emotions. Respondents indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each of the statement using a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strong agree” (7). Higher scores indicate the respondents reported a higher level of emotional awareness. A sample item for emotional self awareness is “I am aware of my emotions as I experience them.” A sample item for awareness of others’ emotions is “By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing.” Political skill. Political skill was measured using the eighteen-item, four-dimensional Political Skill Inventory developed by Ferris et al. (2005). A seven-point scale was utilized, with item responses ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Sample items include “I always seem to instinctively know the right thing to say or do to influence others.” and “It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most people.” Because no differential predictions were made in terms of the relationships of the four different dimensions with other variables, responses to the eighteen items were summed and averaged into a composite, with higher scores indicating greater political skill. Both the focal person and the co-worker completed this scale. The wording of the peer report version was slightly changed (for example, “I” being changed to “s/he”) for usage of peer evaluation of the focal person. Emotion self regulation. A four-item scale developed for this study was used to assess the respondent’s frequency of emotion self regulation. The measure intends to detect how often an employee regulates his or her emotions regardless of how it is done. The scale utilizes a five-

51 point response format with “never” (1) and “extremely often” (5) as endpoints. Sample items include “How often do you consciously monitor your emotions when interacting with colleagues at work?” and “How often do you consciously monitor how you express your emotions when interacting with others at work?” Emotion regulatory strategy. Emotion regulatory strategy was measured using a scale developed by Gross and John (2003). The measure consists of ten items, among which six items represent the strategy of reappraisal, and the other four represent the strategy of suppression. A seven-point response format was utilized. A sample item for reappraisal is “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or ), I change what I’m thinking about.” A sample item for suppression is “I keep my emotions to myself.” The construct has shown strong construct validity as reported by Gross and John (2003). Emotional dissonance. Emotional dissonance was measured by a five-item scale adapted from Morris and Feldman (1996b) and Holman et al. (2002), and a seven-point response format was used (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 7). Higher scores indicate higher level of emotional dissonance. Peer perceived authenticity. Peer perceived authenticity was measured by a three-item measure adapted from Grandey, Mattila, Fisk, and Sideman (2002). The wording was changed to fit the context of the study. A sample item is “This person oftentimes is not being him or herself at work. (Reverse coded)” A seven-point response format is utilized (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 7). Higher scores indicate higher level of peer perceived authenticity. Peer liking. A four-item scale developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990) was used to measure peer perceived liking for the focal person. The scale utilized a seven-point response format with “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (7) as endpoints. Sample items are “I get along with this person.” and “I think this person would make a good friend.” Trust. Trust was measured using a twelve-item measure developed by McAlister’s (1995). This measure consists of six items that are designed to measure affect-based trust, and six items that are designed to measure cognition-based trust. A sample item for affect-based trust is “We have a sharing relationship.” A sample item for cognition-based trust is “I can rely on this person not to make my job more difficult by careless work.” A seven-point response format (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) was utilized.

52 Social support. Social support was measured using McAlister’s (1995) peer citizenship behavior scale. This scale includes ten items, with seven of them measuring peer affiliative citizenship behaviors, and three items measuring peer assistance-oriented citizenship behavior. These two dimensions are similar to the emotional support and instrumental support dimensions of social support, respectively. A sample item for peer affiliative citizenship behaviors is “I take time to listen to this person’s problems and worries.” A sample item for peer assistance-oriented citizenship behavior is “I help this person when (s)he has been absent.” A seven-point scale was utilized for this measure. Affective well being. Affective well being of the respondent was measured by the Job- related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) developed by van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000). Respondents were asked to what extent they experienced thirty different emotions at work during the last thirty days. The responses were then averaged to form a composite with higher score indicating better affective well being. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a five-item subscale of Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) index (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) with a seven-point format (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job.” Job performance. Job performance was measured with four items from the role-based performance scale developed by Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998), using a seven-point response format (1 = needs much improvement to 5 = excellent). Respondents were asked to rate themselves on quantity of work output, quality of work output, accuracy of work, and service provided to both external and internal customers. The same items were also used for a peer report measure for job performance. Control variables. Age was measured in number of years. Gender was coded with male as 1 and female as 0. Because the majority of the respondents were White, race was coded with White equals 1 and all other races equals to 2. Degree was coded from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher degrees. Work experience was measured in numbers of months. Position was coded from 1 to 6 with lower scores indicating lower positions. Six items adapted from Bateman and Crant ( 1993), as was used in Parker (1998), were used to assess proactive personality. A seven-point response format was used (1 = strongly

53 disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “If I see something I don’t like, I fix it.” and “I am always looking for better ways to do things.” Social desirability was measured using four items adapted from Crowne and Marlowe (1960). Sample items include “I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something. (Reverse coded)” and “I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings.” Relationship with the focal person was coded as supervisor, co-worker, or subordinate. Relationship tenure is measured as the length of time since the co-worker and the focal person started to work together, and relationship quality is measured as the degree to which the co- worker knows the focal person well. Data Analysis First, preliminary analyses were conducted to test the presence of common method biases, and the construct validity of the measures that were either developed for this study or adapted from other sources. Hypotheses 1 through 4 were tested using hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, the demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, race, education, work experience, position, relationship, relationship tenure, and relationship quality) were entered. The predictor variables were entered in step 2. Hypotheses 5 through 10 were tested by hierarchical moderated regression analyses. Specifically, moderated regression analyses were conducted to determine the influence of emotion regulatory strategy and political skill on the relationships between emotion self regulation and its outcomes (i.e., emotional dissonance, peer perceived authenticity, peer liking). In the first step, the demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, race, education, work experience, position, relationship, relationship tenure, and relationship quality) were entered as controls. The predictor variables were entered in step 2, and the interaction term was included in the final step. Hypotheses 11 through 19 were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL.

54 CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the aforementioned analyses. First, the preliminary analyses are discussed. This is followed by a brief discussion on the summary statistics for the variables that are examined in this study. Then, the results of the analyses are reported and interpreted. Finally, results of some post hoc analyses are discussed. Preliminary Analyses Before testing the study’s hypotheses, two exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), one for focal person report variables, and the other for peer report variables, were conducted to test the potential existence of common method biases. This is deemed necessary for two reasons. First, the focal persons have responded to questions that are related to both independent variables and some of the dependent variables (e.g., emotional dissonance, job satisfaction). Second, as shown in Table 3, some constructs that were assessed using responses from the co-worker questionnaires were closely related to each other. Therefore, it is important to see if they represent one, or multiple factor(s). More than one factor emerged for both of the EFAs, thus, there is evidence that common method variance was not a significant concern. Because some of the scales were developed for this study, or adapted from other sources, two confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), one for the antecedent variables, the other for the outcome variables, were conducted using LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) in order to establish the construct validity of the scales. Scales included in the first CFA were display rules, emotional self awareness, awareness of others’ emotions, social status, and emotion self regulation. Several items (See Appendix 1 for correspondent item contents; items deleted are italicized) were deleted based on the modification indices. The fit statistics for the model were as follows: Chi-square=365.10, df=242, NFI=.85, CFI=.95, GFI=.82, RMSEA=.06). Note that although other fit indices met the recommended threshold, NFI and GFI did not. Scales included in the second CFA were emotional dissonance, authenticity, and liking. The fit statistics of the model were as follows: Chi-square=68.79, df=51, NFI=.93, CFI=.98, GFI=.90, RMSEA=.06). Thus, the model yield a reasonable fit to the data, providing evidence for construct validity of these scales.

55 Analyses of Hypotheses Table 3 provides the summary statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliabilities, and correlations) for the scales used in this study. Most of the results were as expected, but a few were surprising. For example, social support was not significantly correlated with affective well being; the correlations between social support and job satisfaction, and between social support and peer report job performance, were not significant, either. In addition, emotion regulation was not significantly related to any variables besides suppression (r=.24, p<.01) and emotional dissonance (r=.28, p<.01). Also noteworthy are the correlations between the self report and peer report measures of several constructs. Self report use of reappraisal was not significantly related to peer report reappraisal. To some extent, this is not surprising, because reappraisal concerns one’s cognitive activities that go on in the mind, and therefore, is not easily observable by one’s peers (Gross & John, 2003). However, this correlation is noticeably different from that reported by Gross and John (2003), which was .25 (p<.05). The correlation between self report suppression and peer report suppression was not significant. Gross and John (2003) reported a correlation of .53 (p<.001) in their survey study. Moreover, the correlation between peer report and self report performance was not significant. Finally, the correlation between peer report and self report political skill was .29 (p<.01), suggesting a reasonable level of congruence; however the correlation between self report social status and peer report social status was not significant. Thus, overall, except for political skill, the peer report and self report measures have failed to correspond with each other to an adequate degree. A final set of correlations worthy of mention are the control variables of age, gender, and relationship quality. Age was positively and significantly related to job satisfaction (r=.24, p<.01). It appears that males are more likely than females to suppress their emotions, as evident in a positive and significant correlation between gender and self report suppression (r = .25, p<.01). Interestingly, relationship quality turned out to correlate highly with perceived authenticity (r=.29, p<.01), liking (r=.41, p<.01), trust (r=.54, p<.01), social support (r=.38, p<.01), peer report job performance (r=.41, p<.01), as well as job satisfaction (r=.25, p<.01). Hypotheses 1 through 4. Hypotheses 1 through 4 predicted that emotional display rules, social status, interaction partner status, and emotional awareness are positively related to the frequency of one’s emotion regulation. Results for these hypotheses are presented in Table 4 and

56 Table 5. Table 4 presents the results when social status was measured by self report. In Table 5 self report social status was replaced by peer perceived social status measure; The F statistic for the model was not significant when the peer report social status was used, therefore, the results shown in Table 5 were not significant and were not interpreted. As can be seen in Table 4, display rules were not significantly related to emotion self regulation (=.11, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 1 received no support. As predicted in Hypothesis 2, social status was negatively and significantly related to emotion regulation (=-.15, p<.05, see Table 4). Thus, Hypothesis 2 received partial support. Contrary to the prediction in Hypothesis 3, interaction partner status was not significantly related to emotion self regulation (=-.11, n.s., see Table 4). As predicted by Hypothesis 4, emotional self awareness was positively and significantly related to frequency of emotion self regulation (=.17, p<.10, see Table 4). However, awareness of others’ emotions were not a significant predictor of frequency of emotion self regulation when the self report social status was used ( =.00, n.s., see Table 4). Thus, Hypothesis 4 only received partial and marginal support. Overall, the total variance explained by the model was relatively small (R2=.07, p<.10), indicating that a large percentage of variance are explained by variables that are not included in the model. Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5a predicted that reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance. Table 6a shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression analysis to test this hypothesis. As can been seen in Table 6a, the interaction between self report reappraisal and frequency of emotion self regulation was not significantly associated with emotional dissonance. The incremental variance in emotional dissonance explained by the moderation model was negative (R2=-.00, n.s.). However, the data did show that emotion regulation had a significant main effect on emotional dissonance (=.29, p<.01). As shown in Table 6b, when the peer report measure of reappraisal was used to conduct the analysis, the interaction between emotion self regulation and appraisal was significantly associated with emotional dissonance (=.22, p<.05). However, the direction of interaction was opposite to what was hypothesized (See Figure 2). It was shown that people who were reported by their peers as using reappraisal more frequently than others were more likely to experience emotional dissonance when they regulate their own emotions. Thus, Hypothesis 5a received no support.

57 Table 7a shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression analysis to test Hypothesis 5b, which predicts that suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance. Self report suppression was used in this analysis. As shown in Table 7a, the interaction between suppression and frequency of emotion self regulation was not significantly associated with emotional dissonance ( =.09, n.s.), providing no support for this hypothesis. The moderation model explained no incremental portion of variance in emotional dissonance (R2=.00, n.s.) over and above the control variables, and the main effects of frequency of emotion regulation and suppression. However, the results did show that both emotion regulation and suppression were positively and significantly associated with emotional dissonance (=.20, p<.05, and =.30, p<.001, respectively). Table 7b shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression analysis to test Hypothesis 5b using peer report measure of suppression. As can be seen in Table 7b, the interaction effect between frequency of emotion regulation and suppression was significant (=.24, p<.05). The moderation model explained an incremental portion of variance in emotional dissonance over the main effects model (R2=.05, p<.05). Thus, Hypothesis 5b was partially supported. Interestingly, in all of the above analyses concerning Hypotheses 5a and 5b, social desirability were negatively and significantly related to emotional dissonance, indicating the need for research on emotional dissonance to consider the influence of social desirability in the observed relationships between emotional dissonance and other variables. Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6a predicted that reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity. Contrary to the hypothesis, as shown in Table 8a and Table 8b, no moderation effect was found with either self report or peer report measure of reappraisal. The F statistic for the moderation model was not significant in Table 8a when the self report measure was used. And the incremental variance explained by the moderation model was zero in Table 9b when the peer report measure was used (see Table 8b). It is noteworthy that the main effect of reappraisal on perceived authenticity was negative and significant when the peer report reappraisal was used in the analysis (=-.36, p<.01; see Table 8b), suggesting that individuals are perceived by peers as trying to change their emotional states when needed, they are more likely to be perceived as being inauthentic by the peers.

58

Similarly, Hypothesis 6b, which predicted that suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity, received no support (see Table 9a and Table 9b). The F statistic for the moderation model was not significant in Table 9a when the self report measure was used. When the peer report measure was used, the variance explained by the moderation model over and above the main effect models was not significant (R2=-.01, n.s.). Again, what is noteworthy is that in peer report version of the analysis, suppression was negatively and significantly associated with perceived authenticity (=-.40, p<.001; see Table 9b), suggesting that once individuals are detected by peers as suppressing their real emotions, they are likely to be perceived as being inauthentic. Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7a predicted that reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and liking. The results testing this hypothesis were presented in Table 10a (for self report measure of reappraisal) and Table 10b (for peer report measure of reappraisal). The hypothesized relationship was not supported. The moderation models explained no significant portions of variance in peer liking, as compared to the main effect models. Similarly, Hypothesis 7b, which predicted that suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and liking, was not supported. As shown in Table 11a (for self report measure of suppression) and Table 11b (for peer report measure of suppression), the moderation models explained no additional variance in peer liking, as compared to the main effect models. However, the results indicated that there was a main effect of peer report suppression on peer liking (=-.27, p<.05; see Table 11b). In addition, relationship quality emerged as the one single factor that was influential on peer liking in both the models testing Hypothesis 7a and Hypothesis 7b. Hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 8 predicted that political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance. The results for this hypothesis are presented in Table 12a (for self report measure of political skill) and Table 12b (for peer report measure of political skill). The interaction between political skill and emotion self regulation was not significantly associated with emotional dissonance, providing no support for the hypothesis. The moderation models explained no significant portions of incremental variance in emotional dissonance over and above the main effects of frequency of emotion regulation and political skill. However, main effects of emotion self regulation were found in both analyses (=.32,

59 p<.01; see Table 12a; =.25, p<.05; see Table 12b). In addition, self report political skill was significantly and negatively related to emotional dissonance (=-.22, p<.05; see Table 12a). Similar to the results for Hypothesis 5, social desirability was again found to have negative and significant relationships with emotional dissonance in the above analyses for Hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 9. Hypothesis 9 predicted that political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and peer perceived authenticity. The results for this hypothesis are presented in Table 13a (for self report political skill) and Table 13b (for peer report political skill). The interaction between political skill and emotion self regulation was not significantly associated with peer perceived authenticity, providing no support for the hypothesis. The incremental variance explained by the moderation model was not significant. However, when the peer report measure was used, political skill was significantly and positively related to perceived authenticity (=.45, p<.001; see Table 13b). Hypothesis 10. Hypothesis 10 predicted that political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and peer liking. The results for this hypothesis are presented in Table 14a (for self report measure of political skill) and Table 14b (for peer report measure of political skill). The interaction between political skill and emotion self regulation was not significantly associated with peer liking. The incremental variance explained by the moderation model was not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 10 was not supported. Note that when the peer report measure was used, political skill was significantly and positively related to perceived liking (=.57, p<.001; see Table 14b). Hypotheses 11 to 19. To test Hypotheses 11 to 19, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using LISREL 8.53 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) to test the model shown in Figure 3a. Scale values were used as single indicators for all variables because the number of items was large relative to the sample size. Measurement error in the scale values was adjusted by setting the path from the latent variable to the indicator equal to the square root of the scale reliability. The error variance was set equal to the variance of the scale value multiplied by one minus the reliability (Hayduk, 1987; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989). A covariance matrix was used as input to LISREL 8.53 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Based on the suggestion of modification indices, three paths were added to the model. The first path is from affective well being and job satisfaction. This is consistent with findings by prior research that indicates a positive and

60 significant relationship between positive emotions and job satisfaction (e.g., Fisher, 2000). The other two links recommended are from authenticity to affective well being, and from authenticity to liking, respectively. Given that being inauthentic increases one’s negative emotional experiences (Gross & John, 2003), it is expected that the reverse should hold true for being authentic to the self. In their study, Gross and John (2003) also found that being inauthentic is associated with less liking from one’s peers. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the reverse should hold true for authenticity. Therefore, these two links were added to the model. The maximum likelihood estimates for the relationships in the model were shown in Figure 3a. The fit indices for the model were as the following: chi-square = 28.86, df = 21, RMSEA =.059, NFI =.90, CFI =.97, GFI=.94. Thus, all statistics were above the recommended cut points, indicating an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Supporting Hypotheses 11 and 12, emotional dissonance was negatively related to affective well being and job satisfaction, respectively. However, emotional dissonance was not significantly related to self report job performance. Thus, Hypothesis 13 was not supported. Consistent with Hypotheses 14 to 16, the results showed significant paths from authenticity and liking to trust, as well as from trust to social support. Thus, Hypotheses 14, 15, and 16 were supported. Surprisingly, social support was negatively related to affective well being. Thus, Hypothesis 17 was not supported. To test for the possibility that it is one’s affective well being that influences social support (that is, the possibility that people help those who seem to need it), an alternative model was tested with the direction of the relationship between peer social support and affective well being reversed. The fit indices for the model were as the following: chi-square = 28.31, df = 21, RMSEA =.057, NFI =.90, CFI =.97, GFI=.94. Thus, the fit for the alternative model was almost the same with that for the original model. Unfortunately, because the two models were not nested, it was not possible to compare them statistically. Thus, a chi-square difference to degrees of freedom ratio (Bollen, 1989) for each model was used as a means of subjective comparison. The ratios were 1.37 for the original model, and 1.35 for the alternative model. Bollen (1989) suggested a rule of thumb of no higher than 3.0 for this ratio. Thus, both models provide reasonable fit, given the number of parameters estimated. This suggests that there is a possibility that the relationship was reversed.

61 Contrary to the predictions by Hypotheses 18 and 19, social support was not found to be significantly related to job satisfaction and peer report performance. Thus, Hypotheses 18 and 19 were not supported. To examine further if the above findings are consistent when the peer report job performance measures were used, another run of LISREL analysis was conducted with the job performance measured by peer report. The modification indices suggested adding one more path from trust to job performance. This suggestion was followed considering when people trust someone they are likely to have positive bias in the performance evaluations for this person. The maximum likelihood estimates for the relationships in the model were shown in Figure 3b. The fit indices for the model were as the following: chi-square = 25.83, df = 20, RMSEA =.052, NFI =.94, CFI =.98, GFI=.95. Thus, all statistics were above the recommended cut points, indicating an acceptable fit of the model to the data. The results provided additional evidence of the previous analysis using self report performance measure. Note that, however, different from the previous model using self report job performance, in this model the relationship between social support and (peer report) job performance was significant, providing some support for Hypothesis 17. Post Hoc Analyses As discussed above, hypotheses testing failed to yield support for most of the moderating effects that were hypothesized. In many of the analyses, however, emotion regulatory strategies and political skill were found to have significant main effects on the outcome variables. Thus, additional analyses were conducted to examine the relationships of emotion regulatory strategies and political skill with outcome variables. The Main Effects of Emotion Regulatory Strategies and Political Skill The model to be tested. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using LISREL 8.53 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) to test the model shown in Figure 4a. In this model, emotion regulatory strategies and political skill were modeled, instead of being moderators in the relationships between emotion regulation and outcomes, to have main effects on these job related outcome variables. Specifically, reappraisal was modeled to be positively related to affective well being. This is based on Gross and John’s (2003) finding that individuals who tend to reappraise experience more positive emotions. Suppression was modeled to be negatively related to affective well being mediated by emotional dissonance. This is consistent with Gross and John

62 (2003) who found that individuals who tend to suppress their emotions experience more negative emotions, and this is because these individuals are aware of their being inauthentic, and therefore, feel negatively about it. Further, it has also been proposed by Gross and John (2003) that reappraisal is positively related to self feeling of authenticity and peer liking. The reverse was proposed to hold true for suppression. Thus, four links were proposed in the model, from reappraisal and suppression to perceived authenticity and liking, respectively. Because politically skilled individuals are good at appearing to be genuine, getting others to like them, and networking with people (Ferris et al., 2005), it was proposed that political skill will positively influence peer perceived authenticity, liking, and relationship quality. In addition, relationship quality was added to the model both because Gross and John (2003) argued that emotion regulatory strategies influence the level of closeness in one’s social relationships, and because of the fact that it was significantly related to variables such as trust and social support, which in a sense also reflects relationship quality. Reappraisal was modeled to be positively related to relationship quality, and suppression was negatively associated with relationship quality. Again, this is consistent with Gross and John’s (2003) findings. The reasoning they articulated was that individuals who tend to reappraise are more likely than those who do not to share emotions with others, and to enjoy closer interpersonal relationships. A number of links were also added to the model based on the hypotheses of the current study and the results of hypotheses testing. These links are: from authenticity to trust, from liking to trust, and from trust to social support. Relationship quality was model to be positively related to both trust and social support because close relationship should provide more information and emotional bonds for the establishment of trust, as well as the motive to help. Gross and John (2003) has also suggested that close relationship should be positively related to social support. The links between emotional dissonance and job satisfaction and job performance, as well as between affective well being and job satisfaction were also proposed. The links between the interpersonal outcomes of emotion regulation (i.e., authenticity, liking, relationship quality, trust, social support) and the intrapersonal outcomes (i.e., affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance) were dropped, because responses from one informant may not able to reflect the actual quality of all of one’s key work relationships. It was expected that it should be the overall key work relationships that matter for one’s affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance, if they do matter.

63 Data analyses. To test the proposed model, scale values were used as single indicators for all variables because the number of items was large relative to the sample size. Measurement error in the scale values was adjusted by setting the path from the latent variable to the indicator equal to the square root of the scale reliability. The error variance was set equal to the variance of the scale value multiplied by one minus the reliability (Hayduk, 1987; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989). A covariance matrix was used as input to LISREL 8.53 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Results and discussion. The maximum likelihood estimates for the relationships in the model were shown in Figure 4b. As can be seen in the figure, consistent with prior findings, reappraisal was positively related to relationship quality, which was further positively related to both trust and social support. However, suppression was negatively related to relationship quality. Moreover, suppression was positively related to emotional dissonance, which was further significantly and negatively associated with affective well being and job satisfaction, but not job performance. Contrary to what was expected, neither the emotion regulatory strategies nor political skill was significantly related to peer perceived authenticity or liking. In addition, consistent with prior hypotheses testing, liking was positively associated with trust, and trust was positively related to social support. Thus, regarding emotion regulatory strategies, the results generally replicated what have been found in the Gross and John (2003) study and the previous hypotheses testing in the current study using regression analyses. It was evident that emotion regulation strategies have both intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. Whereas suppression was likely to have decreased one’s level of affective well being and job satisfaction due to the increased level of emotional dissonance, reappraisal seemed to have enhanced one’s affective well being, and led one to enjoy close work relationships that are characterized with trust and social support from peers. Unfortunately, whether such positive work relationships increase one’s level of affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance were not tested because of the limitation of the current data. In addition, the current data did not show any evidence that peer perceived authenticity and liking were influenced by one’s emotion regulatory strategies. The Intrapersonal Outcomes of Political Skill Model tested. The results for political skill failed to support the argument that politically skilled individuals are more likely to be perceived as sincere, to be liked by peers, and to have positive work relationships with their peers. Thus, a final set of analyses focused on the

64 intrapersonal effects of political skill. Specifically, the model presented in Figure 5a was tested using SEM. Paths that were found significant in previous analyses were included, together with the links between political skill and affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance. It was expected that when one perceive him or her self as politically skilled, she or he will enjoy a higher level of affective well being, be more satisfied with his or her job, and perceive him or her self as having been performing well. Data analyses. Scale values were used as single indicators for all variables because the number of items was large relative to the sample size. Measurement error in the scale values was adjusted by setting the path from the latent variable to the indicator equal to the square root of the scale reliability. The error variance was set equal to the variance of the scale value multiplied by one minus the reliability (Hayduk, 1987; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989). A covariance matrix was used as input to LISREL 8.53 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Results and discussion. As shown in Figure 5a, all the links presented in the model were significant. Specifically, it was found that when using self report measures, political skill has positive relationships with affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance. Three additional analyses were also conducted with political skill and job performance measured either by self report or peer report. Figure 5b, 5c, and 5d presented the results of these analyses. As shown in the figures, some of the paths were not supported when using peer report measures. Thus, it can only be concluded based on the current data that when one perceives oneself as politically skillful, she or he is more likely to enjoy a greater level of affective well being, job satisfaction, and perceives him or her self as a better performer. Whether one’s actual political skill has a significant impact on these outcomes is still subject to question. Summary This chapter presented the data collection procedures, measures used, data analyses strategies, and results of data analyses. Table 15 is a summary of the results of the hypotheses testing. In the next chapter, the findings and non-findings of the study will be discussed, as well as future research opportunities.

65 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION This chapter discusses and provides a conclusion for the results previously presented. First, the findings and non-findings are discussed in further detail. This is followed by a discussion of the limitations and contributions of the current investigation, along with some suggestions for future research. Finally, the practical implications are discussed. Major Findings and Nonfindings The purpose of the study was to identify some of the antecedents, outcomes, moderators, and mediators of emotion self regulation at work. In terms of antecedents of emotion self regulation, four variables, emotional display rules, status of interaction partner, emotional awareness, and social status, were hypothesized to be significantly related to the frequency of emotional self regulation. Two distinctive types of intermediate variables, intrapersonal and interpersonal variables, were hypothesized to influence the outcomes of emotion self regulation, including affective well being, job satisfaction, and job performance. Moreover, emotion regulatory strategies and political skill were hypothesized to moderate the relationship between emotion self regulation and its outcomes. The findings and nonfindings of the study are discussed in detail below. Antecedents of emotion self regulation. There was some evidence that emotional self awareness were positively related to emotion self regulation. Being aware of one’s own emotions were associated with more frequent emotion self regulation. However, being aware of others’ emotions was not significantly related to the emotion self regulation. It is likely that in order for the knowledge of others’ emotions to promote one’s emotion self regulatory behavior, there has to be a context; for example, one being the cause of the other’s emotional experiences, or one being capable of influencing others by managing one’s own emotions. For example, being aware that one’s own bad mood has caused other team members to feel similar emotions might lead one to adjust his own emotional expressions so that others may feel better. In addition, it is also likely that awareness of others’ emotions will promote one’s motives to regulate others’ emotions, not necessarily the emotions of one self. For example, being aware that one’s friend at work is angry about her boss might lead one to express sympathy and understanding in order to comfort her and make her feel better.

66 One’s social status was found to be negatively associated with emotion self regulation, giving support to the argument that people with higher social status have a greater freedom in emotional expressions. It is interesting to note that the variance of social status in the current data was relatively small. In fact, according to the data, 74% of the respondents have rated themselves as having social status between 5 and 6. Considering the small variance and the fact that the sample size was relatively small, it may be expected that the influence of social status on emotion self regulation is actually stronger than what has been found in this study. Surprisingly, one’s relative status to the interaction partner was not found to be significantly related one’s tendency to self regulate emotions more frequently. It is possible that the design of the study has not allowed a good correspondence between the interaction partner and emotion self regulation. That is, it is likely that the respondents have reflected on their general tendency to regulate emotions at work, rather than in their interactions with frequent interaction partners. Future research that directly observes the interaction encounters may help in this regard. Contrary to the hypothesis, it appears that the strength of the display rules has no significant influence on one’s tendency of emotion self regulation. Although this is surprising, it is possible that the result reflects the fact that the overall display rules of an organization has less strong an influence on one’s emotional behaviors than one’s immediate interaction contexts do (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Future research is needed to explore this possibility. In sum, in terms of the antecedents of emotion self regulation, consistent with the hypotheses and prior research, both situational and dispositional factors influenced the frequency of one’s emotion self regulation. There was some evidence that social status and emotional awareness have significant influences on emotion self regulation. This study is among the first to empirically examine the antecedents of emotion self regulation. Moderators of the emotion self regulation-outcome relationship. The only hypothesized moderating relationship that received some support was the prediction that the interaction between suppression and emotion regulation will have a significant relationship with emotional dissonance. When the peer report measure was used, the tendency to use suppression as an emotion regulatory strategy moderated the relationship between the emotion regulation and emotional dissonance, such that individuals who tend to suppress their emotions were more likely to experience emotional dissonance than others. However, the hypothesis did not receive support when the self report measure was used.

67 Contrary to what was hypothesized, when the peer report measure of reappraisal was used, the interaction between reappraisal and emotion self regulation significantly predicted emotional dissonance. It was found that for those who tend to reappraise, emotional dissonance was more likely to be experienced when they regulated their emotions often. This is likely due to the inaccuracy of the co-workers’ evaluation of the focal person’s use of reappraisal, as reflected in the lack of correspondence between self report and peer report reappraisals. As such, most of the predicted moderating relationships were not supported. It is suspected that it is mainly because of the measure of the emotion self regulation, as well as problems with the sample characteristics of the current study. This is discussed in detail in the next section, “sensemaking of the results and limitations of current investigation”. Outcomes of emotion self regulation and the mediators. Although not many interactions were found between the emotion self regulation and emotion regulatory strategies on work- related outcomes, the current study did show that emotion regulatory strategies matter. It was found in the post hoc analyses that whereas reappraisal was positively related to affective well being, suppression was positively related to emotional dissonance, which was further associated with decreased levels of affective well being and job satisfaction. In addition, although reappraisal was not found to be significantly associated with relationship quality, suppression was shown to be negatively related to relationship quality. Peers who interacted closely with individuals who tend to suppress emotions tended to report that they do not know the persons really well, indicating a lack of closeness in the relationships. In addition, because relationship quality was strongly associated with peer trust and social support, the lack of close relationships with peers may have hindered the ability for individuals who tend to suppress emotions to be trusted and receive social support from their peers. The above findings have both validated and extended findings of prior research (e.g., Gross & John, 2003). Despite some interesting findings in terms of the social outcomes of emotion regulatory strategies (as indicated by the significant relationship between suppression and relationship quality), both the hypotheses testing and the post hoc analyses have failed to find support for the proposition that emotion self regulation and the strategies used will influence peer perceived authenticity and liking. Specifically, emotion self regulation has no significant social consequences as reflected in peer perceived authenticity, liking, trust, and social support. In addition, neither of the two self report emotion regulatory strategies was significantly related to

68 peer perceived authenticity or liking. Thus, although there was some evidence that reappraisal and suppression are differentially related to peer perceived authenticity and liking (based on the regression analyses), SEM which tested simultaneously the multiple relationships proposed in the model failed to show that emotion regulatory strategies significantly influence these variables. This is in contrast to Gross and John’s (2003) findings. One possible explanation is that the emotion regulatory strategies the focal persons used were not fully observed by their peers in this study, as indicated in the lack of correspondence between self report and peer measures of these variables. Surprisingly, contrary to what would be expected, social support from peers was negatively and significantly related to one’s affective well being. It is possible that the causal relationship between the two variables is reversed. It is possible that poor affective well being leads one to seek out social support from peers. Unfortunately, the current data was unable to validate this possibility. In addition, although the overall relationships between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity, liking, trust, and social support were not supported, the data did indicate that perceived authenticity and liking are significantly related to trust, and trust is positively related to social support. These findings have important implications for the trust literature. It is shown that trust did have both affective and cognitive bases. Moreover, it indicates that trust does have behavioral implications (cf., McAlister, 1995). Finally, additional analyses have found that politically skilled individuals tend to have greater affective well being, higher levels of job satisfaction, and better self perceived job performance. Research on political skill has just recently emerged from the literature, the results of the current study provided encouraging evidence supporting previous theoretical work (e.g., Ferris et al., 2005). Sensemaking of the Results and Limitations of the Current Investigation As discussed above, although there was some evidence that emotion regulatory strategies influence one’s social relationships with others, the study has failed to find the proposed interpersonal effects for emotion self regulation. This leads to my sensemaking of the study results and an examination of the limitations of the study.

69 Measure of Emotion Self Regulation An interesting picture emerged as I went through the results. That is, if the word “emotion self regulation” is replaced with “emotional labor”, “reappraisal” with “deep acting”, and “suppression” with “surface acting”, the findings of the current study provide strong support for previous research on emotional labor. For example, consistent with the argument by Morris and Feldman (1996), frequency of emotional labor was positively related to emotional dissonance. Also consistent with prior research (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998), surface acting (i.e., suppression) was more positively related to emotional dissonance than deep acting; furthermore, emotional dissonance was further negatively related to affective well being and job satisfaction, consistent with Andrew and Feldman (1996) and Morris and Feldman (1996b). Deep acting (i.e., reappraisal), in contrast, was positively related to one’s affective well being, consistent with the findings by Gross and John (2003). Thus, it seems that the construct of emotion regulation was not distinguished from that of emotional labor as perceived by the respondents in this study. That is, the respondents have viewed the construct of emotion self regulation more or less as the same thing as emotional labor. Given the subtle differences and significant overlap between the concept of emotional labor and emotion self regulation, this in a sense is not surprising. In fact, prior research has proposed and found evidence that reappraisal corresponds with deep acting, and suppression corresponds with surface acting (Grandey, 2000; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). However, this does indicate that the measure of emotion self regulation in the current study is problematic. It is likely that the items were worded in such a negative way that they were viewed as something undesirable, or what one is forced to do, rather than something that one proactively practices in order to enhance one’s psychological and social emotional situations at work. It is also likely that the emotion self regulation scale has failed to capture the full domain of the construct. Looking back upon the measure, it seems that the scale has been rather thin for such a rich concept as emotion self regulation. Obviously, beyond the frequency with which individuals regulate their emotions, the concept of emotion self regulation pertains to other important issues, for example, the specific emotions involved (e.g., happiness or sadness), the motive for emotion regulation (cf., Totterdell & Holman, 2003), the level of effort involved, and so forth. Leaving out these specific content of emotion self regulation probably has caused important variances in the data not being captured.

70 It also could be that it is not the frequency of emotion regulation at all, but the contents of it, the strategies people use, and their level of skillfulness with different strategies (or, the ability to flexibly adjust one’s emotion regulatory strategies), that really matter. In sum, future research needs to refine the measure in a way that reflects the true domain of emotion self regulation. Sample Characteristics Another equally important factor that may have influenced the study results is the characteristics of the sample. The respondents of the study are employees of a hospice, mostly nurses. Although hospice is a setting where emotions are more likely to be captured, two characteristics of the sample make it a less than desirable one to test the current model. First and foremost, employees of a hospice typically spend most of their times at work interacting with patients. Although, like in other workplace, the employees need to communicate with and get help from each other, interactions with patients might have been both a major source of their emotional experiences, and the social setting where their emotional expressions and emotion regulation take place. In support of this argument, Grandey (2000) argued that in service context interactions with customers have a greater impact on emotion regulation than those with co- workers. It has also been found that customers were the most frequent source of anger events for a group of part-time employees and that faking emotions occurred more often in response to customers than co-workers (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002). In addition, many of the employees in the current sample work on shifts, or are part- time workers. The turnover rate in the organization has continuously been above 100% as per personal communication between the researcher and the contact person. These might have led to several consequences that exerted influence on the results of the study. Above all, the co-workers of the focal employees may not know them as well as the patients do, and therefore, were not able to make accurate evaluations as to the focal persons’ emotional behaviors. Moreover, this may have made their interactions with colleagues within the organization a less important factor influencing their emotional lives. In addition, the lack of interaction and mutually beneficial relationships might also have decreased the motive of the focal persons to proactively monitor their own emotional behaviors for the purpose of establishing and maintaining positive work relationships with their co-workers. The relatively large standard deviation in the measure of perceived display norms suggests that there is a lack of shared emotional culture in the organization. This, together with the high demand for emotion regulation in patient encounters,

71 may have further reduced the motive to attend to other employees’ emotional behaviors and needs, and to proactively monitor one’s own emotions at work. As discussed in chapter three, the fact that one’s emotional behaviors are reacted upon and reciprocated by the interaction partners is an important reason why the interpersonal process of emotion self regulation is important in examining its impact on work related outcomes. In the hospice context, however, it is likely that such reciprocity and emotional social exchanges are not as significant among colleagues as they are between employees and patients. Thus, the ideal research setting for future research that tests the proposed model might be one in which the employees have rather stable work relationships, and among whom the process and outcome interdependencies are high. Furthermore, considering the social emotional exchange aspect of emotion regulation, it is possible that emotion self regulation will not occur equally in all relationships that one has. Rather, the content and frequency of one’s emotion regulation behaviors may vary as a function of the nature and the quality of the relationship. That is, emotion regulation may be relationship- specific. One who regulates his or her emotion in one relationship may not do so in a different relationship. Future research should put emotion regulation into a more specific context when examining its relationships with work related outcomes. Variables that predict the amount of effort one puts into regulating one’s own emotions across different work relationships also merit future research attention. Finally, prior research has reported high levels of emotional exhaustion and burnout among healthcare employees primarily due to the intense emotional labor effort they put into their interactions with customers. Thus, the high level of emotional dissonance among employees resultant from interactions with patients may have contaminated the results. Unfortunately, due to the small sample size, the current data is unable to test this possibility with an acceptable level of confidence. Future research that seeks to test the proposed model needs to find ways to control for the emotional consequences outside the employee-employee interactions, such as employee-customer interactions, and interactions with friends or family. Other Limitations and Additional Thoughts In addition to the above mentioned limitations of the current study, there are several other limitations that have to be considered when interpreting the results of the study. First of all, this study utilized a survey questionnaire design. Although it is better than an experiment design with

72 regard to external validity, it also has some inherit problems when assessing emotions. Emotions are complex and subtle phenomena. Many emotional behaviors of people have become so habitual throughout the socialization process in our early daily lives, that people are not consciously aware of their emotional behaviors. It is likely that when people are asked to consciously reflect upon them, the emotional experiences actually changed. Recently, there has been scholarly discussions on techniques that are helpful in this regard, for example, the use of a diary, or the technique of real time sampling (e.g., Fisher, 2000; Grandey et al., 2002; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). The use of qualitative research design (e.g., Waldron, 2000; Brundin, 2002) and psychophysical measures are also available options (e.g., Gross, 1998a; Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002). Innovative research designs are needed to better understand human emotions. Second, there was only one peer respondent for each focal person in this study. This has made it impossible to eliminate perceptual biases to any degree. It would have been better if multiple peers had provided their perceptions of one focal person and the averaged scores had been used in the data analyses. Third, the sample size of the current study is relatively small. Although all steps possible were taken to increase the sample size, the final sample of the current study is still relatively small. Fourth, the fact that a high percentage of the respondents are females may also have influenced the results for the current study. Finally, the reliabilities of social desirability and awareness of others’ emotions were lower than .70. As mentioned earlier, with the exception of political skill, the correlations between the self report and peer report measures (e.g., reappraisal, suppression, and social status) in the study were noticeably low. This is understandable given, for example, that emotions are not readily perceivable, and that people perceive the world around them differently. However, this does raise the question of which measure to use, or which measure most realistically represents the construct. It is recommended that researchers consider the nature of the construct and research context when making such decisions. For example, emotion regulatory strategy may best reflect the using self report measures. On the other hand, although focal person may accurately reflect upon one’s own social status, peer report may be a better alternative when other variables of interest are interpersonal in nature.

73 Contributions to the Literature Although many of the hypothesized relationships were not supported under the current data set and the research design has a number of limitations, the current study still makes some contributions to the literature, especially to the literature on emotion regulation, emotional labor, political skill, job satisfaction, and social desirability in emotional dissonance research.

Emotion Regulation This is among the first few studies that examined the antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes of emotion regulation at work. The current study strives to simultaneously examine both the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of emotion self regulation. Although the results were not totally as expected, the current study did replicate and extend prior research findings on the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of emotion self regulation (e.g., Cote & Morgan, 2002; Gross & John, 2003). Whereas the Gross and John (2003) study was conducted using undergraduate student samples, the current study utilized employees. In addition, the current study also examined several interpersonal outcome variables that have not been empirically examined, for example, trust, social support, and relationship quality. More importantly, the current study also points to the need for establishing a good measure for emotion self regulation for future research. In order for researchers to better understand the emotion self regulation phenomenon, a better measure of the construct is needed. Prior research has indicated that even in the context of customer service, emotion regulation does not share the same construct domain as emotional labor (Totterdell & Holman, 2003). The differences between the two constructs, therefore, need to be better understood and measured. Without a valid measure of emotion self regulation, its true relationship with other variables are not likely to be found. In addition, future research needs to consider the research context and data collection methods more carefully. Specifically, a typical research context is needed in which the influence of emotional labor is relatively small and the subjects’ own motives for emotion self regulation are strong; and data collection techniques need to take into consideration the fact that emotion is a subtle phenomenon that is subject to change upon cognitive reflection. Theory has established that the social functions of emotion and emotion regulation are not to be ignored (e.g., Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Liu, Ferris, Treadway, Prati, Perrewé, & Hochwarter, in press; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). Such social functions of

74 emotion hold potential to mitigate the detrimental effects of emotion self regulation on one’s well being and performance at work (e.g., Cote & Morgan, 2002; Gross & John, 2003). More empirical research is needed to examine this theoretical possibility. Emotional Labor Although not intended, the current study did make some contributions to the emotional labor literature. Emotion regulatory strategies can be used in emotional labor when one chooses either to deep act or surface act. It has been proposed that deep acting corresponds with reappraisal, and surface acting with suppression (Grandey, 2000). The current data provides further support for this notion in the sense that all relationships were as the way one would predict when reappraisal is replaced with deep acting, and suppression is replaced with surface acting. This also provided some support to the previously posited relationship between emotion regulation and emotional labor. That is, emotional labor represents a special type of emotion regulation, one that occurs in the service context with the purpose of adhering to organizational norms. Moreover, emotional dissonance has been proposed to mediate the emotional labor – negative outcome relationship. The current study supported this notion with regard to surface acting. It was found that when one tends to suppress emotions, there is a higher level of emotional dissonance, which is further related to lowered affective well being and job satisfaction. Political Skill It was not until very recently that researchers started to systematically investigate the role of interpersonal style in the political process. Ferris and colleagues (Ferris, Anthony, Kolodinsky, Gilmore, & Harvey, 2002; Ferris et al., 1999; Ferris, Perrewé, Anthony, & Gilmore, 2000; Perrewé et al., 2000; Perrewé et al., 2004) identified political skill as an important individual difference variable that affects the way individuals try to influence others in interpersonal interactions. To date, much of the research on political skill has focused on establishing the construct validity of the scale. However, little empirical research has been done exploring its social and interpersonal outcomes. The current study is among the first to indicate that political skill has positive interpersonal outcomes in the forms of enhanced affective well being, higher job satisfaction, and higher self perceived job performance. It is worthwhile for future research to explore further whether being politically skilled does influence one’s emotion,

75 attitudes, and behaviors at work, and how it affects one’s social relationships at work, as well as other career outcomes (e.g., promotion, pay increase, job performance evaluation by peers and/or managers). Job Satisfaction In the current study, one’s emotional experiences at work were found to be an important factor influencing job satisfaction. Whereas affective well being was positively related to job satisfaction, emotional dissonance was negatively related to it. This is consistent with the recent argument that job satisfaction has an affective dimension (Weiss, 2002), and the general argument by the Affective Event Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) that emotional experiences at work influence one’s work attitudes. Fisher (2000) collected real time mood and emotion data from employees over a two-week period, and found that the cumulative emotional experiences at work were indeed significantly related to job satisfaction. The current study replicated the results by using longer term emotion data. The results of the current study also indicate that, not only does the content of emotions experienced (as indicated by affective well being), but also how one feels about one’s own emotional experiences and expressions (as indicated by emotional dissonance), influence one’s level of job satisfaction. Social Desirability Social desirability was found to significantly influence individuals’ report of emotional dissonance. This suggests that it is important to control for the influence of social desirability in emotional dissonance research. In fact, it was found in a separate regression analysis that, after controlling for demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, race, educational level, work experiences, and position), social desirability still explained a significant amount of variance in emotional dissonance over and above what was explained by the frequency of emotion self regulation and emotion regulatory strategies (R2=.07, p<.01). With few exceptions, however, the possible influence of social desirability has not been considered by previous research on emotional dissonance. Practical Implications The current study provides some implications for practice. First, organizations should encourage more antecedent-focused emotion self regulation (e.g., reappraisal), and help their employees use respondent-focused emotion self regulation (e.g., suppression) less frequently. Because reappraisal is associated with a better sense of well being and social relationships at

76 work, it is beneficial for employees as well as the organization in the long run. In contrast, emotional suppression is associated with emotional dissonance and lowered job satisfaction, therefore, it is detrimental for employees and organizations. Again, training on emotional awareness will help employees to choose better emotion regulation strategies, as indicated by prior emotional intelligence research (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997). At the same time, however, organizations also should try to establish an organizational culture where employees have the resources as well as social and psychological support needed to practice the more desirable type of emotion regulatory strategies. For example, in a work environment where people get punished emotionally or socially by expressing their true feelings, employees have no choice but to suppress their emotions. In contrast, when employees’ feelings are recognized, understood, and appreciated, employees will feel more comfortable sharing their emotional experiences with others, and being true to themselves. Thus, both individuals and organizations have to work together on building an emotionally healthy and positive workplace. Second, it seems necessary for organizations to devote efforts into developing their employees’ political skills. It has been suggested that political skill can be developed through training (Ferris et al., 1999; Ferris et al., 2002; Perrewé et al., 2004). Given the beneficial influence of political skill on one’s affective well being and job satisfaction, organizations should consider efforts to develop political skill in order to contribute to a positive workforce. Organizations may consider such techniques as drama-based training, developmental simulations, and behavior modeling as ways to help political skill development (Ferris et al., 2002). Such human resource management effort, by helping to enhance employees’ interpersonal skills, should contribute to a positive organization with employees who not only can work hard, but also knows how to work smart. Conclusion This study set out to better understand the construct of emotion self regulation by examining its antecedents, outcomes, moderators, and mediators. I was able to examine the proposed model using a matched sample of 108 employees from the same firm. Although a relatively small number of these hypotheses were empirically supported, the findings from this study pointed to fruitful areas for further investigations and future studies on emotion regulation. More research needs to be done to explore whether, and in what context, emotion self regulation has positive intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes.

77 Table 1: A Comparison of the Similarity and Differences between the Construct of Emotional Labor and Emotion Regulation

Emotional labor Emotion regulation Emotion self regulation Other oriented emotion regulation Primary Adhering to organizational Individual initiatives to Individual initiatives to motives norms manage one’s inner manage others’ inner emotional state or emotional state or emotional behaviors emotional behaviors Primary Promote positive emotional Promote positive and/or Promote positive and/or objectives experience and expression; negative emotional states negative emotional states Suppress negative emotional of self according to the in others according to the experience and expression situational needs situational needs

Tactics Acting (deep acting; surface Monitoring of self Monitoring of others’ acting) with the primary emotions emotions focus on audiences’ emotions Primary Expression of emotion of Felt emotion of self Other’s felt emotions and target self and felt emotion of emotional behaviors others Intrapersonal Emotional expressions with Emotional experiences Emotional expressions changes or without changes in with or without changes with or without changes involved emotional experiences in emotional expressions in emotional experiences Applicability Service context All private and social All social contexts contexts

78 Table 2: Summary of Hypotheses

H1: The strength of display rules is positively related to the frequency individuals regulate their emotions at work. H2: Social status is negatively related to individuals’ frequency of emotion regulation at work. H3: The relative status, as compared to the focal person, of individuals’ primary interaction partner at work is positively related to individuals’ frequency of emotion regulation at work. H4: Emotional awareness is positively related to individuals’ frequency of emotion regulation at work. H5a: Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance, such that individuals who tend to use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategy are less likely to experience emotional dissonance than others. H5b: Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance, such that individuals who tend to suppress their emotions are more likely to experience emotional dissonance than others. H6a: Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity, such that the emotional behaviors of individuals who tend to use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategy are more likely to be perceived as authentic than others. H6b: Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and perceived authenticity, such that the emotional behaviors of individuals who tend to suppress their emotions are less likely to be perceived as authentic than others. H7a: Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and liking, such that individuals who tend to use reappraisal as their emotion regulatory strategy are better liked by their peers than others. H7b: Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and liking, such that individuals who tend to suppress their emotions are less well liked by their peers than others. H8: Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and emotional dissonance, such that individuals with high political skill are less likely to experience emotional dissonance than others. H9: Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and peer perceived authenticity, such that the emotional behaviors of individuals with high political skill are more likely to be perceived as authentic than those of others. H10: Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion self regulation and peer liking, such that individuals with high political skill are better liked by others than those with low political skill. H11: Emotional dissonance is negatively related to affective well being. H12: Emotional dissonance is negatively related to job satisfaction.

79 Table 2 (Continued)

H13: Emotional dissonance is negatively related to job performance. H14: Perceived authenticity is positively related to interpersonal trust. H15: Liking is positively related to interpersonal trust. H16: Trust is positively related to social support. H17: Social support is positively related to affective well being. H18: Social support is positively related to job satisfaction. H19: Social support is positively related to job performance.

80 Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables Mean SD N Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 1 Display rule 4.29 1.28 140 0.70 1.00 2 Interaction partner status 1.85 0.54 133 NA -0.16 1.00 3 Emotional self awareness 5.28 0.96 140 0.82 -0.12 0.05 1.00 4 Awareness of others' emotions 5.30 0.75 140 0.66 -0.04 0.07 0.55 ** 1.00 5 Social status (self report) 5.58 0.81 140 0.93 -0.06 0.10 0.15 0.14 1.00 6 Social status (peer report) 6.28 0.90 108 0.84 -0.15 0.04 -0.07 -0.04 0.13 7 Emotion self regulation 3.51 0.63 140 0.78 0.17 * -0.14 0.12 0.09 -0.13 8 Reappraisal (self report) 5.14 0.93 140 0.82 0.18 * 0.14 0.12 0.18 * 0.12 9 Reappraisal (peer report) 3.00 1.54 106 NA 0.00 0.10 -0.02 0.16 0.05 10 Suppression (self report) 3.23 1.04 140 0.74 0.06 -0.07 -0.10 -0.26 ** -0.16 11 Suppression (Peer report) 3.02 1.57 107 NA 0.18 -0.09 0.15 0.11 -0.02 12 Political skill (self report) 5.25 0.64 140 0.85 0.11 0.17 0.35 ** 0.18 * 0.39 ** 13 Political skill (peer report) 5.26 0.93 108 0.94 -0.12 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.17 14 Emotional dissonance 3.02 1.07 140 0.82 0.22 ** -0.23 ** -0.17 -0.17 * -0.46 ** 15 Peer perceived authenticity 5.97 1.12 108 0.87 0.03 -0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 16 Peer liking 6.33 0.84 108 0.92 -0.20 * 0.07 -0.05 0.02 0.12 17 Peer trust 5.84 1.01 108 0.93 -0.14 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.17 18 Peer social support 5.32 0.88 108 0.86 -0.06 0.18 0.20 * 0.14 0.08 19 Affective well being 3.64 0.57 140 0.95 -0.16 0.05 0.31 ** 0.18 * 0.43 ** 20 Job satisfaction 5.80 1.00 140 0.90 -0.10 0.13 0.27 ** 0.22 ** 0.58 ** 21 Job performance (self report) 4.13 0.61 140 0.85 -0.15 -0.01 0.21 * 0.01 0.26 ** 22 Job performance (peer report) 4.39 0.74 108 0.89 -0.13 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.20 * 23 Age 47.43 10.94 138 NA -0.01 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.06 24 Gender 0.13 0.34 139 NA 0.00 0.19 * 0.04 -0.10 0.01 25 Race 1.12 0.33 139 NA 0.05 -0.03 0.09 0.06 -0.09 26 Degree 4.37 1.30 139 NA -0.05 0.18 * -0.01 0.12 -0.03 27 Work experience 234.52 134.25 138 NA -0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.05 28 Position 4.03 0.88 138 NA 0.09 -0.32 ** 0.05 0.08 -0.07 29 Social desirability 5.16 1.31 140 0.64 -0.06 0.15 0.22 * 0.16 0.21 * 30 Positive personality 4.86 0.91 140 0.78 0.22 * 0.11 0.18 * 0.07 0.12 31 Relationship 1.55 0.87 104 0.04 0.23 * -0.31 ** -0.05 -0.04 32 Relationship tenure 32.73 32.50 98 NA 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.10 33 Relationship quality 3.64 0.81 105 NA 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.14 0.07 Note: Two-tailed test; * p< .05; ** p<.01

81 Table 3 (Continued) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Display rule 2 Interaction partner status 3 Emotional self awareness 4 Awareness of others' emotions 5 Social status (self report) 6 Social status (peer report) 1.00 7 Emotion self regulation 0.01 1.00 8 Reappraisal (self report) 0.05 0.12 1.00 9 Reappraisal (peer report) -0.17 -0.15 -0.05 1.00 10 Suppression (self report) 0.02 0.24 ** 0.11 -0.09 1.00 11 Suppression (Peer report) -0.25 ** -0.08 -0.16 0.44 ** 0.07 1.00 12 Political skill (self report) 0.03 0.12 0.22 ** 0.08 -0.03 -0.06 1.00 13 Political skill (peer report) 0.52 ** 0.10 0.11 -0.07 -0.05 -0.29 ** 0.29 ** 14 Emotional dissonance -0.10 0.28 ** 0.00 0.00 0.32 ** 0.05 -0.19 * 15 Peer perceived authenticity 0.45 ** 0.09 0.08 -0.37 ** 0.04 -0.48 ** 0.09 16 Peer liking 0.69 ** 0.02 0.07 -0.16 -0.06 -0.29 ** -0.02 17 Peer trust 0.79 ** 0.04 0.06 -0.17 -0.07 -0.30 ** 0.11 18 Peer social support 0.26 ** -0.08 0.07 0.05 -0.13 -0.11 0.03 19 Affective well being 0.15 -0.05 0.23 ** -0.04 0.08 -0.17 0.33 ** 20 Job satisfaction 0.19 * -0.04 0.17 * 0.02 -0.09 -0.09 0.37 ** 21 Job performance (self report) -0.14 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.22 ** 22 Job performance (peer report) 0.77 ** -0.09 0.11 -0.16 -0.08 -0.28 ** 0.02 23 Age -0.06 0.08 0.09 -0.14 0.04 0.05 0.09 24 Gender 0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.05 0.25 ** 0.08 -0.01 25 Race 0.12 0.14 -0.06 0.22 * 0.14 0.12 -0.14 26 Degree 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.07 -0.08 -0.11 0.11 27 Work experience -0.06 0.08 0.08 -0.02 0.07 0.06 0.02 28 Position 0.01 0.13 -0.09 -0.07 -0.06 -0.01 -0.18 * 29 Social desirability 0.01 0.00 0.05 -0.11 0.00 -0.03 0.05 30 Positive personality -0.18 0.02 0.07 0.04 -0.07 -0.01 0.42 ** 31 Relationship -0.19 -0.13 -0.05 0.13 -0.06 0.12 -0.06 32 Relationship tenure 0.14 0.24 * 0.04 -0.17 0.06 0.13 0.13 33 Relationship quality 0.26 ** -0.08 0.10 -0.06 -0.17 -0.18 0.08 Note: Two-tailed test; * p< .05; ** p<.01

82 Table 3 (Continued) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 Display rule 2 Interaction partner status 3 Emotional self awareness 4 Awareness of others' emotions 5 Social status (self report) 6 Social status (peer report) 7 Emotion self regulation 8 Reappraisal (self report) 9 Reappraisal (peer report) 10 Suppression (self report) 11 Suppression (Peer report) 12 Political skill (self report) 13 Political skill (peer report) 1.00 14 Emotional dissonance -0.09 1.00 15 Peer perceived authenticity 0.45 ** -0.01 1.00 16 Peer liking 0.63 ** -0.17 0.42 ** 1.00 17 Peer trust 0.77 ** -0.19 0.47 ** 0.80 ** 1.00 18 Peer social support 0.52 ** -0.11 0.09 0.32 ** 0.43 ** 1.00 19 Affective well being 0.18 -0.29 ** 0.35 ** 0.08 0.18 -0.14 1.00 20 Job satisfaction 0.18 -0.44 ** 0.30 ** 0.15 0.23 * -0.04 0.70 ** 21 Job performance (self report) -0.01 -0.10 -0.11 -0.17 -0.07 0.01 0.15 22 Job performance (peer report) 0.56 ** -0.17 0.40 ** 0.63 ** 0.79 ** 0.28 ** 0.25 ** 23 Age 0.03 -0.12 0.01 0.03 0.05 -0.07 0.16 24 Gender -0.15 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.11 -0.06 -0.02 25 Race 0.09 0.04 -0.07 0.08 0.15 0.04 -0.02 26 Degree 0.12 -0.06 0.14 0.03 0.08 0.02 -0.19 * 27 Work experience -0.11 -0.05 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 -0.09 0.16 28 Position -0.17 0.09 0.09 0.06 -0.02 -0.15 -0.03 29 Social desirability 0.12 -0.32 ** 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.18 * 30 Positive personality -0.10 -0.08 -0.17 -0.15 -0.12 -0.01 0.07 31 Relationship -0.08 -0.02 -0.19 -0.14 -0.22 * 0.00 -0.23 * 32 Relationship tenure 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.19 -0.07 0.17 33 Relationship quality 0.50 ** -0.18 0.29 ** 0.41 ** 0.54 ** 0.38 ** 0.16 Note: Two-tailed test; * p< .05; ** p<.01

83 Table 3 (Continued) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Display rule 2 Interaction partner status 3 Emotional self awareness 4 Awareness of others' emotions 5 Social status (self report) 6 Social status (peer report) 7 Emotion self regulation 8 Reappraisal (self report) 9 Reappraisal (peer report) 10 Suppression (self report) 11 Suppression (Peer report) 12 Political skill (self report) 13 Political skill (peer report) 14 Emotional dissonance 15 Peer perceived authenticity 16 Peer liking 17 Peer trust 18 Peer social support 19 Affective well being 20 Job satisfaction 1.00 21 Job performance (self report) 0.18 * 1.00 22 Job performance (peer report) 0.27 ** -0.11 1.00 23 Age 0.24 ** 0.03 0.04 1.00 24 Gender -0.05 0.12 -0.07 0.03 1.00 25 Race -0.13 -0.10 0.05 -0.26 ** -0.08 1.00 26 Degree 0.01 -0.06 0.08 0.05 0.10 -0.06 1.00 27 Work experience 0.17 * -0.05 0.08 0.61 ** 0.13 -0.15 0.07 28 Position -0.12 0.15 -0.03 -0.06 -0.21 * 0.17 * -0.19 * 29 Social desirability 0.37 ** 0.24 ** 0.11 0.22 ** -0.14 -0.01 -0.10 30 Positive personality 0.12 0.14 -0.13 -0.07 0.01 -0.01 -0.05 31 Relationship -0.21 * -0.16 -0.17 -0.01 -0.02 -0.21 * -0.11 32 Relationship tenure 0.19 -0.12 0.12 0.25 * -0.01 -0.01 -0.17 33 Relationship quality 0.25 ** -0.06 0.41 ** 0.15 -0.10 -0.10 -0.01 Note: Two-tailed test; * p< .05; ** p<.01

84 Table 3 (Continued) 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 Display rule 2 Interaction partner status 3 Emotional self awareness 4 Awareness of others' emotions 5 Social status (self report) 6 Social status (peer report) 7 Emotion self regulation 8 Reappraisal (self report) 9 Reappraisal (peer report) 10 Supression (self report) 11 Supression (Peer report) 12 Political skill (self report) 13 Political skill (peer report) 14 Emotional dissonance 15 Peer perceived authenticity 16 Peer liking 17 Peer trust 18 Peer social support 19 Affective well being 20 Job satisfaction 21 Job performance (self report) 22 Job performance (peer report) 23 Age 24 Gender 25 Race 26 Degree 27 Work experience 1.00 28 Position -0.17 * 1.00 29 Social desirability 0.06 0.19 * 1.00 30 Positive personality -0.10 -0.19 * 0.01 1.00 31 Relationship -0.03 -0.26 ** -0.16 0.07 1.00 32 Relationship tenure 0.03 -0.13 0.10 0.06 0.05 1.00 33 Relationship quality 0.06 -0.10 0.19 * -0.08 -0.05 0.20 Note: Two-tailed test; * p< .05; ** p<.01

85

Table 4: Results of Regression Analysis Predicting the Frequency of Emotion Self Regulation Using Self Report Social Status (Test for Hypotheses 1 through 4)

Step 1 Step 2  se  se Step 1: Age .11 .01 .08 .01 Gender .06 .17 .05 .17 Race .26** .18 .24** .18 Degree .06 .04 .07 .04 Work experience .03 .00 .03 .00 Position .14 .07 .08 .07 Social desirability -.03 .04 .00 .05 Positive personality .02 .06 -.02 .06

Step 2: Display rules .11 .05 Social status -.15* .07 Interaction partner status -.11 .11 Emotion self awareness .17+ .07 Awareness of others’ emotions .00 .09

Model F (df) 1.64+ 1.74+ (8, 121) (13, 116) Adjusted R2 .04 .07 Adjusted ∆R2 .03 Notes: One tail test was used for predictor variables; ** p< .01, * p< .05, + p<.10

86

Table 5: Results of Regression Analysis Predicting the Frequency of Emotion Self Regulation Using Peer Report Social Status (Test for Hypotheses 1 through 4)

Step 1 Step 2  se  se Step 1: Age .04 .01 -.01 .01 Gender .05 .21 .00 .21 Race .13 .22 .14 .22 Degree .06 .05 .10 .05 Work experience -.01 .00 .02 .00 Position .07 .08 .04 .09 Social desirability .01 .06 .07 .06 Positive personality .04 .07 .01 .07 Relationship -.13 .08 -.06 .09 Relationship tenure .31** .00 .30** .00 Relationship quality -.14 .08 -.10 .09

Step 2: Display rules .22* .06 Social status .03 .07 Interaction partner status -.09 .13 Emotion self awareness .21+ .09 Awareness of others’ emotions -.20+ .11

Model F (df) 1.30 1.39 (11, 81) (16, 76) Adjusted R2 .04 .06 Adjusted ∆R2 .02 Notes: One tail test for predictor variables; ** p<.01, * p< .05, + p< .10

87

Table 6a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5a)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.07 .01 -.10 .01 -.10 .01 Gender -.02 .28 -.02 .27 -.02 .27 Race .02 .29 -.04 .29 -.04 .30 Degree -.08 .07 -.11 .07 -.11 .07 Work experience .05 .00 .04 .00 .04 .00 Position .12 .11 .07 .11 .07 .11 Social desirability -.32*** .07 -.31*** .07 -.31*** .07 Positive personality -.07 .10 -.08 .10 -.08 .10

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .29** .14 .29** .14 Reappraisal -.02 .10 -.02 .10

Step 3: Emotion self regulation x .01 .17 reappraisal

Model F (df) 2.31** 3.16** 2.85** (8, 127) (10, 125) (11, 124) Adjusted R2 .07 .14 .13 Adjusted ∆R2 .05** -.00 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01

88

Table 6b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5a)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.03 .01 -.01 .01 -.04 .01 Gender -.05 .34 -.06 .33 -.09 .33 Race -.16 .39 -.20 .39 -.25 .39 Degree -.17 .09 -.17 .09 -.19 .09 Work experience .00 .00 .01 .00 .02 .00 Position .06 .14 .03 .14 .03 .13 Social desirability -.23+ .09 -.24* .09 -.23* .09 Positive personality -.09 .12 -.11 .12 -.06 .12 Relationship -.11 .14 -.09 .14 -.13 .14 Relationship tenure .06 .00 -.03 .00 -.01 .00 Relationship quality -.20+ .14 -.15 .14 -.16 .14

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .30** .19 .30** .19 Reappraisal . .05 .07 .10 .07

Step 3: Emotion self regulation x .22* .12 reappraisal

Model F (df) 1.38 1.83* 2.07* (11, 82) (13, 80) (14, 79) Adjusted R2 .04 .10 .14 Adjusted ∆R2 .06* .04* Notes: ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.10

89

Table 7a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5b)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.07 .01 -.12 .01 -.13 .01 Gender -.02 .28 -.09 .26 -.09 .26 Race .02 .29 -.09 .28 -.10 .28 Degree -.08 .07 -.07 .07 -.06 .07 Work experience .05 .00 .04 .00 .06 .00 Position .12 .11 .10 .10 .10 .10 Social desirability -.32*** .07 -.31*** .07 -.32*** .07 Positive personality -.07 .10 -.06 .09 -.05 .09

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .21** .14 .20* .14 Suppression .32*** .09 .30*** .09

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .09 .11 x suppression

Model F (df) 2.31* 5.03*** 4.71*** (8, 127) (10, 125) (11, 124) Adjusted R2 .07 .23 .23 Adjusted ∆R2 .16*** .00 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05

90

Table 7b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation - Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 5b)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.08 .01 Gender -.05 .34 -.07 .33 -.10 .32 Race -.15 .39 -.19+ .38 -.17 .37 Degree -.16 .09 -.16 .09 -.17+ .09 Work experience .00 .00 .00 .00 .05 .00 Position .06 .14 .03 .13 .02 .13 Social desirability -.23* .09 -.24* .09 -.26* .09 Positive personality -.09 .12 -.10 .12 -.10 .11 Relationship -.11 .14 -.09 .14 -.09 .14 Relationship tenure .06 .00 -.04 .00 -.05 .00 Relationship quality -.20+ .14 -.14 .14 -.11 .14

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .30** .19 .28** .18 Suppression .07 .07 .07 .07

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .24* .11 x suppression

Model F (df) 1.37 1.85* 2.26* (11, 83) (13, 81) (14, 80) Adjusted R2 .04 .11 .16 Adjusted ∆R2 .07* .05* Notes: ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.10

91

Table 8a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6a)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.05 .01 -.05 .01 -.05 .01 Gender -.03 .35 -.03 .35 -.04 .36 Race -.08 .40 -.08 .40 -.07 .41 Degree .10 .09 .10 .10 .09 .10 Work experience -.06 .00 -.06 .00 -.06 .00 Position .03 .14 .03 .14 .02 .15 Social desirability .14 .10 .14 .10 .14 .10 Positive personality -.12 .12 -.12 .13 -.14 .13 Relationship -.21+ .14 -.21+ .15 -.20+ .15 Relationship tenure .03 .00 .02 .00 .01 .00 Relationship quality .22* .15 .23* .15 .24* .15

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .03 .20 .03 .20 Reappraisal -.02 .13 -.02 .13

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .10 .24 x reappraisal

Model F (df) 1.82 1.51 1.47 (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .09 .07 .07 Adjusted ∆R2 -.02 -.00 Notes: * p<.05, + p<.10

92

Table 8b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6a)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.01 .01 -.05 .01 -.05 .01 Gender -.03 .35 .01 .33 .02 .34 Race -.07 .40 .01 .39 .03 .40 Degree .13 .10 .14 .09 .14 .09 Work experience -.07 .00 -.05 .00 -.06 .00 Position .02 .14 .03 .14 .03 .14 Social desirability .14 .10 .15 .09 .15 .09 Positive personality -.12 .13 -.12 .12 -.14 .12 Relationship -.22* .15 -.14 .14 -.13 .14 Relationship tenure .02 .00 -.02 .00 -.03 .00 Relationship quality .24* .15 .22* .14 .23* .14

Step 2: Emotion self regulation -.01 .19 -.00 .19 Reappraisal -.34** .07 -.36** .08

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.08 .12 x reappraisal

Model F (df) 1.89* 2.65** 2.49** (11, 82) (13, 80) (14, 79) Adjusted R2 .10 .19 .18 Adjusted ∆R2 .11** -.01 Notes: ** p<.01, * p<.05

93

Table 9a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6b)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.05 .01 -.05 .01 -.05 .01 Gender -.03 .35 -.04 .36 -.04 .36 Race -.08 .40 -.08 .40 -.08 .41 Degree .10 .09 .10 .10 .11 .10 Work experience -.06 .00 -.06 .00 -.05 .00 Position .03 .14 .04 .15 .04 .15 Social desirability .14 .10 .14 .10 .14 .10 Positive personality -.12 .12 -.12 .13 -.12 .13 Relationship -.21+ .14 -.20+ .15 -.20+ .15 Relationship tenure .03 .00 .02 .00 .02 .00 Relationship quality .22* .15 .24* .15 .24* .15

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .02 .21 .02 .21 Suppression .06 .12 .05 .12

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .02 .17 x suppression

Model F (df) 1.82+ 1.54 1.41 (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .09 .07 .06 Adjusted ∆R2 -.02 -.01 Notes: * p<.05, + p<.10

94

Table 9b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 6b)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.04 .01 -.03 .01 -.04 .01 Gender -.03 .35 .04 .33 .03 .33 Race -.08 .40 -.04 .37 -.04 .38 Degree .11 .10 .08 .09 .07 .09 Work experience -.06 .00 -.04 .00 -.04 .00 Position .03 .14 .03 .13 .03 .13 Social desirability .14 .10 .16 .09 .15 .09 Positive personality -.12 .13 -.16+ .12 -.16+ .12 Relationship -.21+ .15 -.12 .14 -.12 .14 Relationship tenure .02 .00 .08 .00 .08 .00 Relationship quality .23* .15 .14 .14 .15 .14

Step 2: Emotion self regulation -.00 .19 -.01 .19 Suppression -.40*** .07 -.40*** .07

Step 3: Emotion self regulation x .03 .11 suppression

Model F (df) 1.81+ 3.12** 2.87** (11, 83) (13, 81) (14, 80) Adjusted R2 .09 .23 .22 Adjusted ∆R2 .14*** -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, + p<.10

95

Table 10a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 7a)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.04 .01 -.05 .01 -.06 .01 Gender -.01 .26 -.01 .26 -.02 .26 Race .10 .30 .09 .30 .10 .30 Degree -.02 .07 -.01 .07 -.02 .07 Work experience -.02 .00 -.02 .00 -.03 .00 Position .03 .11 .03 .11 .00 .11 Social desirability .09 .07 .10 .07 .08 .07 Positive personality -.11 .09 -.11 .09 -.13 .09 Relationship -.12 .11 -.11 .11 -.10 .11 Relationship tenure .07 .00 .06 .00 .05 .00 Relationship quality .39*** .11 .39*** .11 .40*** .11

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .02 .15 .02 .15 Reappraisal .07 .09 .07 .09

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .15 .18 x reappraisal

Model F (df) 2.47* 2.10* 2.14* (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .15 .13 .14 Adjusted ∆R2 -.02 .01 Notes: *** p<.001, * p<.05

96

Table 10b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for Hypothesis 7a)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se

Age -.08 .01 -.10 .01 -.09 .01 Gender -.02 .26 .01 .26 .01 .27 Race .09 .30 .13 .31 .14 .32 Degree -.04 .07 -.03 .07 -.03 .07 Work experience -.01 .00 .00 .00 -.00 .00 Position .04 .11 .05 .11 .05 .11 Social desirability .10 .07 .10 .07 .10 .07 Positive personality -.12 .09 -.12 .09 -.13 .10 Relationship -.12 .11 -.08 .11 -.07 .11 Relationship tenure .08 .00 .07 .00 .06 .00 Relationship quality .38*** .11 .37** .11 .37** .11

Step 2: Emotion self regulation -.03 .15 -.03 .15 Reappraisal -.17 .06 -.18 .06

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.06 .10 x reappraisal

Model F (df) 2.40* 2.23* 2.08* (11, 82) (13, 80) (14, 79) Adjusted R2 .14 .15 .14 Adjusted ∆R2 .01 -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05

97

Table 11a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Self Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for hypothesis 7b)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.04 .01 -.04 .01 -.02 .01 Gender -.01 .26 -.01 .27 -.01 .27 Race .10 .30 .09 .30 .09 .30 Degree -.02 .07 -.02 .07 -.03 .07 Work experience -.02 .00 -.02 .00 -.05 .00 Position .03 .11 .02 .11 .02 .11 Social desirability .09 .07 .09 .07 .10 .07 Positive personality -.11 .09 -.11 .09 -.11 .10 Relationship -.12 .11 -.12 .11 -.12 .11 Relationship tenure .07 .00 .06 .00 .05 .00 Relationship quality .39*** .11 .39*** .11 .39*** .11

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .02 .16 .02 .16 Suppression -.01 .09 .01 .09

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.09 .13 x suppression

Model F (df) 2.47* 2.05* 1.96* (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .15 .13 .12 Adjusted ∆R2 -.02 -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, * p<.05

98

Table 11b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Suppression on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Peer Report Emotion Regulatory Strategies (Test for hypothesis 7b)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.07 .01 -.07 .01 -.07 .01 Gender -.02 .26 .03 .26 .03 .26 Race .09 .30 .11 .29 .11 .29 Degree -.03 .07 -.05 .07 -.05 .07 Work experience -.01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Position .04 .11 .04 .10 .04 .11 Social desirability .10 .07 .11 .07 .11 .07 Positive personality -.11 .09 -.14 .09 -.14 .09 Relationship -.12 .11 -.06 .11 -.06 .11 Relationship tenure .08 .00 .13 .00 .13 .00 Relationship quality .38*** .11 .32** .11 .32** .11

Step 2: Emotion self regulation -.03 .15 -.03 .15 Suppression -.27* .06 -.27* .06

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .01 .09 x suppression

Model F (df) 2.44* 2.72** 2.50** (11, 83) (13, 81) (14, 80) Adjusted R2 .14 .19 .18 Adjusted ∆R2 .05* -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05

99

Table 12a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Self Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 8)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.07 .01 -.09 .01 -.09 .01 Gender -.02 .28 -.03 .26 -.03 .26 Race .02 .29 -.06 .28 -.07 .29 Degree -.08 .07 -.09 .07 -.10 .07 Work experience .05 .00 .04 .00 .04 .00 Position .12 .11 .04 .11 .05 .11 Social desirability -.32** .07 -.29** .07 -.29** .07 Positive personality -.07 .10 .01 .10 .00 .10

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .32** .14 .32** .14 Political skill -.22* .15 -.22* .15

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.04 .19 x political skill

Model F (df) 2.31* 3.95*** 3.58*** (8, 127) (10, 125) (11, 124) Adjusted R2 .07 .18 .17 Adjusted ∆R2 .11*** -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05

100

Table 12b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 8)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.05 .01 -.06 .01 -.05 .01 Gender -.05 .34 -.06 .33 -.08 .34 Race -.16 .39 -.19+ .39 -.20+ .39 Degree -.18+ .09 -.19+ .09 -.18+ .09 Work experience .01 .00 .02 .00 .03 .00 Position .07 .14 .05 .14 .07 .14 Social desirability -.22+ .09 -.23* .09 -.21* .09 Positive personality -.09 .12 -.11 .12 -.07 .12 Relationship -.10 .14 -.07 .14 -.08 .14 Relationship tenure .07 .00 -.01 .00 -.02 .00 Relationship quality -.21+ .14 -.16 .16 -.19 .16

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .26* .19 .25* .19 Political skill -.01 .14 .00 .14

Step 3: Emotion self regulation x .14 .22 political skill

Model F (df) 1.58 1.87* 1.87* (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .06 .11 .11 Adjusted ∆R2 .05+ .00 Notes: * p<.05, + p<.10

101

Table 13a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Self Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 9)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.05 .01 -.05 .01 -.03 .01 Gender -.03 .35 -.03 .35 -.03 .35 Race -.08 .40 -.08 .40 -.11 .41 Degree .10 .09 .09 .10 .08 .10 Work experience -.06 .00 -.06 .00 -.07 .00 Position .03 .14 .05 .15 .06 .15 Social desirability .14 .10 .14 .10 .12 .10 Positive personality -.12 .12 -.16 .14 -.18 .14 Relationship -.21+ .14 -.20+ .15 -.23* .15 Relationship tenure .03 .00 .01 .00 .03 .00 Relationship quality .22* .15 .22* .15 .21+ .15

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .02 .20 .03 .20 Political skill .09 .20 .05 .21

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.16 .33 and political skill

Model F (df) 1.82+ 1.57 1.61+ (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .09 .07 .08 Adjusted ∆R2 -.02 .01 Notes: * p<.05, + p<.10

102

Table 13b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Perceived Authenticity Relationship Using Peer Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 9)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.05 .01 -.06 .01 -.05 .01 Gender -.03 .35 .01 .33 -.00 .33 Race -.08 .40 -.16 .38 -.17 .38 Degree .10 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 Work experience -.06 .00 .02 .00 .02 .00 Position .03 .14 .13 .14 .14 .14 Social desirability .14 .10 .12 .09 .12 .09 Positive personality -.12 .12 -.08 .12 -.06 .12 Relationship .21+ .14 -.15 .14 -.16 .14 Relationship tenure .03 .00 -.01 .00 -.02 .00 Relationship quality .22+ .15 .03 .15 .02 .16

Step 2: Emotion self regulation -.00 .18 -.00 .19 Political skill .45*** .14 .45*** .14

Step 3: Emotion self regulation .06 .22 x political skill

Model F (df) 1.82+ 2.94** 2.73** (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .09 .21 .20 Adjusted ∆R2 .12** -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.10

103

Table 14a: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Self Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 10)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.04 .01 -.04 .01 -.03 .01 Gender -.01 .26 -.01 .26 -.01 .26 Race .10 .30 .09 .30 .07 .31 Degree -.02 .07 -.01 .07 -.02 .07 Work experience -.02 .00 -.02 .00 -.02 .00 Position .03 .11 .02 .11 .03 .11 Social desirability .09 .07 .09 .07 .08 .07 Positive personality -.11 .09 -.10 .10 -.11 .10 Relationship -.12 .11 -.12 .11 -.14 .11 Relationship tenure .07 .00 .07 .00 .08 .00 Relationship quality .39*** .11 .39*** .11 .39*** .11

Step 2: Emotion self regulation .02 .15 .03 .15 Political skill -.02 .15 -.04 .16

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.10 .25 x political skill

Model F (df) 2.47* 2.05* 1.96* (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .15 .13 .12 Adjusted ∆R2 -.02 -.01 Notes: *** p<.001, * p<.05

104

Table 14b: Results of Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Political Skill on the Emotion Self Regulation – Peer Liking Relationship Using Peer Report Political Skill (Test for Hypothesis 10)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3  se  se  se Step 1: Age -.04 .01 -.06 .01 -.06 .01 Gender -.01 .26 .04 .23 .05 .23 Race .10 .30 -.01 .26 -.00 .27 Degree -.02 .07 -.03 .06 -.04 .06 Work experience -.02 .00 .08 .00 .07 .00 Position .03 .11 .15 .09 .14 .10 Social desirability .09 .07 .06 .06 .05 .06 Positive personality -.11 .09 -.04 .08 -.06 .08 Relationship -.12 .11 -.05 .09 -.05 .10 Relationship tenure .07 .00 .03 .00 .03 .00 Relationship quality .39*** .11 .13 .11 .14 .11

Step 2: Emotion self regulation -.03 .13 -.03 .13 Political skill .58*** .10 .57*** .10

Step 3: Emotion self regulation -.06 .15 x political skill

Model F (df) 2.47* 5.28*** 4.91*** (11, 84) (13, 82) (14, 81) Adjusted R2 .15 .37 .37 Adjusted ∆R2 .22*** -.00 Notes: *** p<.001, * p<.05

105

Table 15 Summary of Hypotheses Tests

# Relationship Hypothesized Finding Note 1 Display rules is positively related to emotion self regulation See Table 4 and Not supported Table 5 2 Social status is negatively related to emotion self regulation Partial support See Table 4 and Table 5 3 The relative status of the focal person is positively related to Not supported See Table 4 and emotion self regulation Table 5 4 Emotional awareness is positively related to emotion self Partial support regulation See Table 4 and Table 5 5a Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self Not supported See Table 6a and regulation and emotional dissonance Table 6b 5b Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion Partial support See Table 7a and self regulation and emotional dissonance Table 7b 6a Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self Not supported See Table 8a and regulation and perceived authenticity Table 8b 6b Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion Not supported See Table 9a and self regulation and perceived authenticity Table 9b 7a Reappraisal moderates the relationship between emotion self Not supported See Table 10a and regulation and liking Table 10b 7b Suppression moderates the relationship between emotion Not supported See Table 11a and self regulation and liking Table 11b 8 Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion Not supported See Table 12a and self regulation and emotional dissonance Table 12b 9 Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion Not supported See Table 13a and self regulation and peer perceived authenticity Table 13b 10 Political skill moderates the relationship between emotion Not supported See Table 14a and self regulation and peer liking Table 14b 11 Emotional dissonance is negatively related to affective well Supported See Figure 3 being. 12 Emotional dissonance is negatively related to job Supported See Figure 3 satisfaction. 13 Emotional dissonance is negatively related to job Not supported See Figure 3 performance 14 Perceived authenticity is positively related to interpersonal Supported See Figure 3 trust. 15 Liking is positively related to interpersonal trust. Supported See Figure 3 16 Trust is positively related to social support. Supported See Figure 3 17 Social support is positively related to affective well being. Partial support See Figure 3 18 Social support is positively related to job satisfaction. Not supported See Figure 3 19 Social support is positively related to job performance. Not supported See Figure 3

106

Intrapersonal outcomes

H11 Affective well being H17

Display rules

H1 Emotional Job satisfaction dissonance H12 H18

H13 Job performance H19 Social status Emotion self H2 regulation

Peer Interaction H3 perceived H14 partner status authenticity Peer H16 Peer social trust support

Emotional H4 Peer liking awareness H15

H 5-10 Interpersonal outcomes

o Emotion regulatory strategy o Political skill

Figure 1: A Process Model of Emotion Self Regulation

107

5

4.5 HighSeries1 reappraisal 4 LowSeries2 reappraisal 3.5

3

Emotional Dissonance 2.5

2 Low High Emotion self regulation

Figure 2: The moderating Effect of Reappraisal on the Emotion Self Regulation – Emotional Dissonance Relationship Using Peer Report Reappraisal Measure

108

-.28** Affective well Emotional being dissonance .28* -.24** .70** -.24* Emotion self regulation -.05 .42** .11 Job satisfaction

Peer perceived .15* authenticity -.04 Peer trust .05 .47** .47** .80** (Self report) job Peer social support -.02 Liking performance

Notes: n=108; Dashed lines were added based on modification indices. * p<.05, ** p<.01; Fit statistics: Chi-square = 28.86, df=21, RMSEA=.06, NFI=.90, CFI=.97, GFI=.94

Figure 3a: Hypotheses Testing for Hypotheses 11-19 (Self Report Job Performance)

109

-.28** Affective well Emotional being dissonance .29* -.24** .70** -.24* Emotion self regulation -.05 .43** .11 Job satisfaction

Peer perceived .16* authenticity -.04 Peer trust .05 .47** .47** 79 . ** (Peer report) job Liking Peer social support -.11 performance

.91**

Notes: n=108; Dashed lines were added based on modification indices. * p<.05, ** p<.01; Fit statistics: Chi-square = 28.86, df=21, RMSEA=.06, NFI=.90, CFI=.97, GFI=.94 Figure 3b: Hypotheses Testing for Hypotheses 11-19 (Peer Report Job Performance)

110

Affective well _ being Emotional + dissonance

Suppression _ +

_ + _ Job satisfaction _ _

Reappraisal + Relationship + quality Peer perceived Self report job authenticity + performance

+ + + + Political skill Peer trust + + Peer social support + Peer liking

Figure 4a: Additional Analyses on the Main Effects of Emotion Regulatory Strategies: Proposed Model

111

Emotional -.28* dissonance Affective well .31* being -.21* Suppression -.06 -.20* .79** .20* -.02 .43** Job satisfaction -.16

.12 Relationship Reappraisal quality

.07 Peer perceived authenticity .18* .08 .25** Self report job performance .17* .03 Peer trust .08 56 .48** . **

Political skill .81** Peer social support -.05 Peer liking

Notes: n=105; Dashed lines were suggested by the modification indices. * p<.05, ** p<.01; chi- square=61.82, df=41, NFI =.85, CFI=.94; GFI=.91, RMSEA=.074; Used single indicator for latent variables

Figure 4b: Additional Analyses on the Main Effects of Emotion Regulatory Strategies: Results

112

.40 Suppression Emotional dissonance -.27

-.28 Affective well .21 Reappraisal being

.62 .27

Job satisfaction .14 Political skill

.26

Job performance

Notes: n=140; All links were significant at p<.05; Chi-square=11.84, df=10, NFI =.94, CFI=.99; GFI=.98, AGFI=.93, RMSEA=.036; Used single indicator for latent variables

Figure 5a: Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 1

113

.31 Suppression Emotional dissonance -.24

-.26 Affective well .20 Reappraisal being

.68 .22

Job satisfaction .05 Political skill

.33 -.07

(Peer report) job performance

Notes: n=108; Dashed lines were not significant, p<.05; Chi-square=8.77, df=9, NFI =.93, CFI=1.00; GFI=.98, AGFI=.93, RMSEA=.00; Used single indicator for latent variables

Figure 5b: Additional Analysis on the Influences Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes:2

114

.31 Suppression Emotional dissonance -.26

-.25 Affective well .24 Reappraisal being

.68 .14

Job satisfaction .05 (Peer report) political skill -.01

Job performance

Notes: n=108; Paths in dashed lines were not significant, p<.05; Chi-square=8.63, df=10, NFI =.92, CFI=1.00; GFI=.98, AGFI=.94, RMSEA=.00; Used single indicator for latent variables

Figure 5c: Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 3

115

.31 Suppression Emotional dissonance -.26

-.25 Affective well .24 Reappraisal being

.68 .14

Job satisfaction .05 (Peer report) political skill .62

(Peer report) job performance

Notes: n=108; Paths in dashed lines were not significant, p<.05; Chi-square=9.31, df=10, NFI =.93, CFI=1.00; GFI=.98, AGFI=.93, RMSEA=.00; Used single indicator for latent variables

Figure 5d: Additional Analysis on the Influences of Political Skill on Work-related Outcomes: 4

116

APPENDIX A Employee Questionnaire Key1

Display rule (Created for this study)

1) There is a common understanding that certain emotions are not to be expressed in the organization. 2) There are clear guidelines as to how people should treat each other at work (e.g., be friendly). 3) There are implicit norms as to how people should handle emotional issues. 4) It is encouraged that people express only certain emotions when interacting with each other. 5) Expressing strong emotions (positive or negative) at work is not perceived as appropriate

Social status (Adapted from Remiraz, working paper) Reference: Remirez, R. (2004). Organizational and ethnic citizenship behaviors: A preliminary study of how individuals pursue social identities at work. Working paper, College of Business, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA. 1) My colleagues value my competence. 2) My colleagues value my contributions. 3) My colleagues respect my ideas. 4) My colleagues ask for my opinions. 5) My colleagues follow my suggestions. 6) My colleagues think the way I do my jobs adds value. 7) My colleagues respect my personal quality.

Interaction partner status 1) The status (i.e., supervisor, co-worker, or subordinate) of the person with whom the focal person interact most frequently at work

Emotional awareness (Adapted from Schutte et al., 199 and, Bagby et al., 1994) Reference: Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177. Bagby, R. M., Parker, D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I. item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23-32.

Self-awareness: 1) I am aware of my emotions as I experience them. 2) I am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to others. 3) I know why my emotions change. 4) I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them. 5) I am often confused about what emotions I am feeling. ® * 6) I often don’t know why I feel the way I do. ® **

117

7) I have feelings that I can’t quite identify. ® *

Note: 1. Items in italic were eliminated in data analyses based on confirmatory factor analyses.

Awareness of others’ emotions: 1) I find it hard to understand the non-verbal messages of other people. ® 2) By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing. 3) I am aware of the non-verbal messages other people send. 4) When another person tells me about an important event in his or her life, I almost feel as though I have experienced this event myself. 5) I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice. 6) It is difficult for me to understand why people feel the way they do. ® Note: Items adapted from the Bagby et al (1994) study are indicated by *. ** Item created for this study

Political skill (Ferris et al., 2005) Reference: Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management.

1) I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with others. 2) At work, I know a lot of important people and am well connected. 3) I am good at using my connections and networks to make things happen at work. 4) I have developed a large network of colleagues and associates at work who I can call on for support when I really need to get things done. 5) I spend a lot of time at work developing connections with others. 6) I am good at building relationships with influential people at work. 7) It is important that people believe I am sincere in what I say and do. 8) When communicating with others, I try to be genuine in what I say and do. 9) I try to show a genuine interest in other people. 10) I always seem to instinctively know the right thing to say or do to influence others. 11) I have good intuition or “savvy” about how to present myself to others. 12) I am particularly good at sensing the motivations and hidden agendas of others. 13) I pay close attention to people’s facial expressions. 14) I understand people very well. 15) It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most people. 16) I am able to make most people feel comfortable and at ease around me. 17) I am able to communicate easily and effectively with others. 18) I am good at getting people to like me.

Emotion self regulation (created for this study) 1) How often do you consciously monitor your emotions when dealing with issues at work? 2) How often do you consciously monitor your emotions when interacting with colleagues at work?

118

3) How often do you consciously monitor how you express your emotions when interacting with others at work? 4) How often do you control your emotional expressions so that they do not affect your relations with others?

Emotion regulatory strategy (Gross & John, 2003) Reference: Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.

Reappraisal: 1) When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about. 2) When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about. 3) When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm. 4) When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation. 5) I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in. 6) When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.

Suppression: 1) I keep my emotions to myself. 2) When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them. 3) I control my emotions by not expressing them. 4) When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.

Emotional dissonance (Adapted from Morris & Feldman, 1996 and Holman et al., 2002) Reference: Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996b). The impact of emotional dissonance on psychological well-being: The importance of role internalization as a mediating variable. Management Research News, 19, 19-28. Holman, D., Chissick, C., & Totterdell, P. (2002). The effects of performance monitoring on emotional labor and well-being in call centers. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 57-81.

1) Most of the time, the way I act and speak with my co-workers matches how I feel. ® 2) When I work with my co-workers, the way I act and speak often does not match what I really feel. 3) I often feel there is a discrepancy between what I feel and the emotions I should feel when I interact with my co-workers. 4) There is usually no difference between the emotions I express to co-workers and how I feel. ® 5) I often have to hide my true feelings while I am with my co-workers.

119

Job related affective well-being (Adapted from van Katwyk et al., 2000) Reference: Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219-230.

Below are a number of statements that describe different emotions that a job can make a person feel. Please indicate the amount to which any part of your job (e.g., the work, co-workers, supervisor, clients, pay) has made you feel that emotion in the past 30 days. 1) My job made me feel at ease 2) My job made me feel angry 3) My job made me feel annoyed 4) My job made me feel anxious 5) My job made me feel bored 6) My job made me feel cheerful 7) My job made me feel calm 8) My job made me feel confused 9) My job made me feel content 10) My job made me feel depressed 11) My job made me feel disgusted 12) My job made me feel discouraged 13) My job made me feel elated 14) My job made me feel energetic 15) My job made me feel excited 16) My job made me feel ecstatic 17) My job made me feel enthusiastic 18) My job made me feel frightened 19) My job made me feel frustrated 20) My job made me feel furious 21) My job made me feel gloomy 22) My job made me feel fatigued 23) My job made me feel happy 24) My job made me feel intimidated 25) My job made me feel inspired 26) My job made me feel miserable 27) My job made me feel pleased 28) My job made me feel proud 29) My job made me feel satisfied 30) My job made me feel relaxed

Job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1998) Reference: Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C., & Kluger, A. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17-34.

120

1) I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job. 2) Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. 3) Each day of work seems like it will never end. ® 4) I find real enjoyment in my work. 5) I consider my job rather unpleasant. ®

Proactive personality (Adapted from Bateman and Crant, 1993, as was used in Parker, 1998) Reference: Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118. Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835-852.

1) If I see something I don’t like, I fix it. 2) No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. 3) I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition. 4) I am always looking for better ways to do things. 5) If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. 6) I excel at identifying opportunities.

Social desirability (Adapted from Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) Reference: Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

1) There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. ® 2) I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something. ® 3) I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. 4) I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings.

Demographic information 1) Age 2) Gender 1. Male 0. Female 3) Race 1. White/Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 2. Black/African American (non-Hispanic), 3. Asian/Pacific Islander, 4. Native American, 5. Hispanic (regardless of race), 6. Other 4) Education 1. Some high school 2. High school diploma, 3. Some college

121

4. College diploma 5. University degree 6. Post-graduate degree(s) 5) Work experience (months of full time work experiences) 6) Position 1. Top Management 2. Upper Management 3. Middle Management 4. Professional 5. Non-supervisory/Staff 6. Entry-Level

122

APPENDIX B Co-worker Questionnaire Key1

Peer perceived emotion regulatory strategy (Adapted from Gross & John, 2003) Reference: Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.

Reappraisal: 1) When this person tried to feel different emotions, s/he changes the way s/he is thinking about the situation. a) Suppression: 2) When this person tries to feel different emotions, s/he controls her/his emotions by not expressing them.

Peer perceived social status (Adapted from Remiraz, working paper) 1) This person is well respected at work. 2) This person’s contribution at work is valuable. 3) This person exerts a great deal of influence over decisions at work.

Peer perceived political skill (Ferris et al., 2005) Reference: Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management.

1) S/he spends a lot of time and effort at work networking with others. 2) At work, s/he knows a lot of important people and is well connected. 3) S/he is good at using my connections and networks to make things happen at work. 4) S/he developed a large network of colleagues and associates at work who s/he can call on for support when s/he really need to get things done. 5) S/he spends a lot of time at work developing connections with others. 6) S/he is good at building relationships with influential people at work. 7) S/he it important that people believe s/he is sincere in what s/he says and does. 8) When communicating with others, s/he tries to be genuine in what s/he says and does. 9) S/he tries to show a genuine interest in other people. 10) S/he always seems to instinctively know the right thing to say or do to influence others. 11) S/he has good intuition or “savvy” about how to present her/himself to others. 12) S/he is particularly good at sensing the motivations and hidden agendas of others. 13) S/he pays close attention to people’s facial expressions. 14) S/he understands people very well.

Note: 1. Items in italic were eliminated in data analyses based on confirmatory factor analyses.

123

15) It is easy for him/her to develop good rapport with most people. 16) S/he is able to make most people feel comfortable and at ease around him/her. 17) S/he is able to communicate easily and effectively with others. 18) S/he is good at getting people to like him/her.

Peer perceived authenticity (Adapted from Grandey, Mattila, Fisk, & Sideman, 2002) Reference: Grandey, A., Mattila, A., Fisk, G., & Sideman, L. (2002). Is that smile for real? Reactions to inauthenticity in customer service. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Denver, CO. 1) This person oftentimes is not being him or herself at work. ® 2) This person oftentimes fakes how he or she is really feeling when they are at work. ® 3) This person oftentimes pretends, or put on an act, when interacting with others. ®

Peer liking (Adapted from Wayne & Ferris, 1990) Reference: 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.

1) I like this person very much as a person. 2) I get along with this person. 3) Working with this person is a pleasure. 4) I think this person would make a good friend.

Peer trust (McAllister, 1995) Reference: McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

Affect-based trust 1) We have a sharing relationship. 2) We can both freely share out ideas, feelings, and . 3) I can talk freely to this individual about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen. 4) We would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred and we could no longer work together. 5) If I shared my problems with this person, I know (s)he would respond constructively and caringly. 6) I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional investments in our working relationship.

124

Cognition-based trust 7) This person approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication. 8) Given this person’s track record, I see no reason to his/her competence and preparation for the job. 9) I can rely on this person not to make my job more difficult by careless work. 10) Most people, even those who aren’t close friends of this individual, trust and respect him/her as a co-worker. 11) Other work associates of mine who must interact with this individual consider him/her to be trustworthy. 12) If people knew more about this individual and his/her background, they would be more concerned and monitor his/her performance more closely. ®

Social support (McAllister, 1995) Reference: McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

Peer affiliative citizenship behavior 1) I take time to listen to this person’s problems and worries. 2) I willingly help this individual, even at some cost to personal productivity. 3) I have taken a personal interest in this individual. 4) I pass on new information that might be useful to this person. 5) I frequently do extra things I know I won’t be rewarded for, but which make my cooperative efforts with this person more productive. 6) When making decisions at work that affect this individual, I try to take his/her needs and feelings into account. 7) I try not to make things more difficult for this person by my careless actions.

Peer assistance-oriented citizenship behavior 8) I help this person when (s)he has been absent. 9) I help this person with difficult assignments, even when assistance is not directly requested. 10) I assist this person with heavy work loads, even though it is not part of my job.

Job performance (Adapted from the role-based performance measure by Welbourne et al., 1998) Reference: Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance Scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555

1) Quantity of work output 2) Quality of work output 3) Accuracy of work 4) Customer service provided (internal and external)

Demographic information 1) Age 2) Gender (Male, Female)

125

Relationship with the focal person 1) What is your relationship with this person? 2) Relationship tenure (“How long have you been working this person) 3) Relationship quality (“How well do you know this person?”)

126

APPENDIX C Cover Letter for Employee Survey Questionnaire

Dear [NAME], My name is Yongmei Liu. As a doctoral candidate at the Florida State University, I am collecting data for my dissertation, under the direction of Professor Pamela Perrewé. The purpose of this study is to gain knowledge in the area of employee emotions at work. Your organization has agreed to participate in this study and provide access to its employees. However, your participation is completely voluntary. Choosing not to participate will have no adverse consequences for you concerning your relationship with your organization. If you would be willing to participate, what you can do to help is to take 15 to 20 minutes out of your busy day to answer the questions on the attached survey. In the questionnaire, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your work life. You will also be requested to provide names of three of your colleagues, from whom we would like to gather some additional information about you. After completing the questionnaire, please return it directly to us in the postage paid envelope provided in this package. By doing so, you will be providing us with valuable insights into employees’ feelings and behaviors regarding their jobs and relationships at work. This information will assist us and other researchers in finding ways to help employees to make their work lives more positive experiences. Your answers will be absolutely confidential. Only my advisor (Professor Perrewé) and I will view your responses to this survey. We do need to match your responses with that from your colleague whom you will be asked to refer to us. In order to facilitate this, I have placed a numbered code on the first page of your survey. A master list of matched employee-colleague responses will be kept until the data is entered into the computer, at which time all identifying criteria will be destroyed and there will be no further way to identify individual employee responses. Until the master list is destroyed, it will be kept confidential and secured in a locked box kept in the researcher’s locked office. Thus, every effort will be made to keep your identity confidential to the extent allowed by law. As a small token of our appreciation for your participation, we will enter your name in a drawing for three prizes of $50 if you complete and return the survey in two weeks. To enter the drawing, please email your name to me at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 850-228-8816 or [email protected], or Professor Pamela Perrewé at 850-644-7848 or [email protected]. You can also contact the human subject committee at the Florida State University at 850-644-8673 for relevant information on this research project. I greatly appreciate your time and help with my research! Thank you very much for your participation.

______Yongmei Liu Pamela L. Perrewé, Ph.D. Ph.D. Candidate College of Business College of Business Florida State University Florida State University Dissertation Chair for Yongmei Liu

127

APPENDIX D Cover Letter for Co-worker Survey Questionnaire

Dear [NAME],

You are receiving this survey on emotions at work because, as a participant in the research project on employees’ emotions at work, one of your colleagues [NAME ] has identified you as someone who knows [HIM/HER] and [HIS/HER] work well. In this short survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes to complete, we would like to gather from you some information regarding your relationship to this colleague and your opinion as to [HIS/HER] performance at work. If you were participant in the first survey a few weeks ago, you will soon find that some of the questions look familiar. You are right. What we are trying to do is to get your perspectives, as a colleague, on some similar issues. I apologize in advance for asking you to do another survey, but your responses are extremely critical for the success of this study. Your answers will be absolutely confidential. Only my advisor (Professor Perrewé) and I will view your responses to this survey. We do need to match your responses with that from your colleague who referred you to us. In order to facilitate this, I have placed a numbered code on the first page of your survey. To ensure confidentiality, a master list of matched employee-colleague responses will be kept until the data is entered into the computer, at which time all identifying criteria will be destroyed and there will be no further way to identify individual employee responses. Until the master list is destroyed, it will be kept confidential and secured in a locked box kept in the researcher’s locked office. Thus, every effort has been made to keep your identity confidential to the extent allowed by law. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 850-228-8816 or [email protected], or Professor Pamela Perrewé at 850-644-7848 or [email protected]. You can also contact the human subject committee at the Florida State University at 850-644-8673 for relevant information on this research project. I greatly appreciate your time and help with my research! Thank you very much for your participation.

______Yongmei Liu Pamela L. Perrewé, Ph.D. Ph.D. Candidate College of Business College of Business Florida State University Florida State University Dissertation Chair for Yongmei Liu

128

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 124, 229-246. Abraham, R. (1999). Negative affectivity: Moderator or confound in emotional dissonance- outcome relationships? Journal of Psychology, 133, 61-72. Adelmann, P. (1989). Emotional labor and employee well-being. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Adelmann, P. (1995). Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S. L. Sauter & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 371-381). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Allen, T. D., & , M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247-260. Andersen, L. R., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). The bright side of relational communication: Interpersonal warmth as a social emotion. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 48-96). San Diego: CA: Academic Press. Andersen, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 282-296. Andrew, M. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The impact of emotional dissonance on psychological well-Being: The importance of role internalisation as a mediating variable. Management Research News, 19, 19-28. Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton. Arvey, R. D., Renz, G. L., & Watson, T. W. (1998). Emotionality and job performance: Implications for personnel selection. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 103-147). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in work place: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125. Ashforth, B. E., & Tomiuk, M. A. (2000). Emotional labour and authenticity: Views from service agents. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 184-203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Averill, J. R. (1980). A construct view of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (Vol. 1, pp. 305-339). New York: Academic Press. Bagby, R. M., Parker, D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I. item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23-32. Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). : A review from top and bottom. In M. A. Neale & E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 1, pp. 81- 102). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

129

Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Tuner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802-836. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118. 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. Beehr, T. A. (1985). The role of social support in coping with organizational stress. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated perspective (pp. 375-398). New York: Wiley. Beehr, T. A. (1995). in the workplace. London: Routledge. Beehr, T. A., & Drexler Jr., J. A. (1986). Social support, autonomy, and hierarchical level as moderators of the role characteristics-outcome relationship. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 207-214. Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and co-worker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-405. Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: Talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 61-81. Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 29-302. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Sufficient and necessary conditions in dual-process models: The case of mood and information processing. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual- process theories in social psychology (pp. 423-440). New York: Guilford Press. Bouty, L. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 50-65. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock Publications. Bradley, S. J. (1990). Affect regulation and psychopathology: Bridging the mind-body gap. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 540-547. Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311. Brotheridge, C., & Grandey, A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of "people work". Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57-67. Brundin, E. (2002). Emotions in motion: The strategic leader in a radical change process (JIBS Dissertation Series, No. 012). Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden. Cahill, S. E., & Eggleston, R. (1994). Managing emotions in public: The case of wheelchair users. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 300-312.

130

Callahan, J. L., & McCollum, E. E. (2002). Obscured variability: The distinction between emotion work and emotional labor. In N. M. Ashkanasy & W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 219-321). New York: M. E. Sharpe. Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394-402. Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. G. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations (Vol. 59 (2-3, Serial No. 240)). Monographs of the society for research in child development. Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the society for research in Child Development (Vol. 59 (Serial number 240)). Clark, C. (1990). Emotions and micropolitics in everyday life: Some patterns and paradoxes of "place". In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the (pp. 305- 333). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24. Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 333-338. Clore, G. (1994). Why emotions are felt. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotions (pp. 103-111). New York: Cambridge University Press. Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475. Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 984-1014. Cote, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 947-962. Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., & Elias, S. M. (2004). The impact of display rules and emotional labor on psychological well-being at work. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well being: Emotional and Physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (pp. 45-89). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Darwin, G. (1872/1998). The expression of emotion in man and animals. New York: Philosophical Library. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeiffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385-400. Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., Worline, M. C., Lilius, J. M., & Kanov, J. M. (2002). Leading in times of trauma. Harvard Business Review, 80, 54-61.

131

Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 207-283). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384-392. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88-106. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & O'Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 414-420. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). Predicting workplace outcomes from the ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 963-971. Erber, R., Wegner, D. M., & Therriault, N. (1996). On being cool and collected: Mood regulation in of social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 757-766. Erickson, R. J., & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression: Assessing the consequences of interactive service work. Work and Occupations, 24, 188-213. Feldman Barrett, L., & Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A process model of emotion representation and regulation. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 286-310). New York: Guilford. Feldman Barrett, L., Gross, J. J., Christensen, T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what you're feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 713-724. Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157-175. Ferris, G. R., Anthony, W. P., Kolodinsky, R. W., Gilmore, D. C., & Harvey, M. G. (2002). Development of political skill. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Research in management education and development, volume 1: Rethinking management education for the 21st century (pp. 3-25). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Ferris, G. R., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Gilmore, D. C., Buckley, M. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Witt, L. A. (1999). Development and initial validation of the political skill inventory. Paper presented at the 59th Academy of Management Meetings, Chicago, IL. Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence process in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 65-127). Oxford, England: JAI Press/Elsevier Science. Ferris, G.R., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., & Frink, D.D. (2001). Conceptualization, measurement, and validation of the political skill construct. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, 61st Annual National Meeting, Washington, D.C. Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work. Organization Dynamics, 28, 25-37. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 124-152. Fineman, S. (1993). Organizations as emotional arenas. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 9-35). London: Sage Publications. Fineman, S. (1999). Emotion and organizing. In S. R. Clegg & C. Harday (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory and method (pp. 289-310). London: Sage.

132

Fineman, S. (2000). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage. Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185-202. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309. Frank, M. G., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1993). Behavioral markers and recognizability of the smile of enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 83-93. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319. Fridlund, A. J. (1992). The behavioral ecology and sociality of human faces. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358. Gaensbauer, T. J. (1982). Regulation of emotional expression in infants from two contrasting caretaking environments. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 163- 170. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment for relational and transactional consumers. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321-338. Gatta, M. L. (2002). Juggling food and feelings : Emotional Balance in the Workplace. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. George, J. M. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and moods. Human Relations, 50, 393-416. George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027-1055. George, J. M. (2002). Affect regulation in groups and teams. In R. G. Lord & R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace (pp. 183-217). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687-697. Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. J. (2002). Grinning, frowning, and emotionless: Agent perceptions of power and their effect on felt and displayed emotions in influence attempts. In N. M. Ashkanasy & W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 184-211). New York: M. E. Sharpe. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books. Grandey, A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95-110. Grandey, 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.

133

Grandey, A., Mattila, A., Fisk, G., & Sideman, L. (2002). Is that smile for real? Reactions to inauthenticity in customer service. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Denver, CO. 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. Greenspan, S. J., & Porges, S. W. (1984). Psychopathology in infancy and early childhood: Clinical perspectives on the organization of sensory and affective-thematic experience. Child Development, 55, 49-70. Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224-237. Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271-299. Gross, J. J. (1999a). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 551- 573. Gross, J. J. (1999b). Sharpening the focus: Emotion regulation, arousal, and social competence. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 287-290). New York: Guilford Press. Gross, J. J. (1999c). Emotion and emotion regulation. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 525-552). New York: Guildford. Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 214-219. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1997). Revealing feelings: Facets of emotional expressivity in self- reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 435-448. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95-103. Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1989). Impression management in services marketing: A dramaturgical perspective. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 427-438). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartel, C. E. J., Hsu, A. C. F., & Boyle, M. V. (2002). A conceptual examination of the causal sequences of emotional labor, emotional dissonance, and emotional exhaustion: The argument for the role of contextual and provider characteristics. In N. M. Ashkanasy & W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 251-275). New York: M. E. Sharpe. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

134

Hearsey, R. B. (1932). Worker's emotions in shop and home: A study of individual workers from the psychological and physiological standpoint. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Himmelweit, S. (1999). "Caring labor". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 27-38. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feelig rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press. Holman, D., Chissick, C., & Totterdell, P. (2002). The effects of performance monitoring on emotional labor and well-being in call centers. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 57-81. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 187-220). Newbury Park: Sage. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical . Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403. House, R.J., Shane, S.A., & Herold, D.M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21: 203-224. Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325-345. Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31-69. Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummmings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 1-53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 36, 16-78. James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9, 188-205. Johnson-George, C. E., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1306-1317. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-546. Jörekog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSSX. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific software International. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C., & Kluger, A. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17-34. Kahn, R., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 571- 650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.

135

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86, 99-130. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 505-521. Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2, 320-342. Kemper, T. D. (1984). Power, status, and emotions: A sociological contribution to a psycho- physiological domain. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 369-384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kemper, T. D. (1990). Social relations and emotions: A structural approach. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 207-237). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 165-182. Krone, K. J., & Morgan, J. M. (2000). Emotion metaphors in management: The Chinese Experience. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 82-100). London: Sage. Kruml, S., & Geddes, D. (2000a). Catching fire without burning out: Is there an ideal way to perform emotional labor? In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. E. J. Hartel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace (pp. 177-188). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Kruml, S., & Geddes, D. (2000b). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 8-49. Labouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., DeVoe, M., & Schoeberlein, S. (1989). Emotions and self- regulation: A life span view. Human Development, 32, 279-299. Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M., Schwartz, G. E., Walker, P. A., & Zeitlin, S. B. (1990). The levels of emotional awareness scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality assessment, 55, 124-134. LaRocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1978). Coworker and leader support as moderators of stress- strain relationships in work situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 629-634. Larsen, R. J. (2000). Maintaining hedonic balance: Reply to commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 218-225. Lawler, E. J. (2001). An effect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 321-352. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as . Social Forces, 63, 967-985. Levenson, R. (1999). The intrapersonal functions of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 481- 504. Liu, Y., Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Prati, L. M., Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (in press). The emotion of politics and the politics of emotion: Affective and cognitive reactions to politics as a stressor. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.

136

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1319-1328). Chicago: Rand McNally. Lord, R. G., & Harvey, J. L. (2002). An information processing framework for emotional regulation. In R. G. Lord & R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 115-146). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mann, S. (1999). Hiding what we feel, faking what we don't: Understanding the role of your emotions at work. New York: Harper-Collins. Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: at the body shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469. Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (2000). Bounded emotionality at the body shop. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in Organizations (pp. 115-139). London: Sage. Maslach, C. (1982). Maslach Burnout Inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Mastenbroek, W. (2000). Organizational behavior as emotion management. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. E. J. Hartel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace (pp. 19-35). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Matsumoto, D. (1991). Cultural influences on facial expressions of emotion. The Southern Communication Journal, 56, 128-137. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 197-208. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic books. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996a). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 257-274. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996b). The impact of emotional dissonance on psychological well-being: The importance of role internalization as a mediating variable. Management Research News, 19, 19-28. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 257-274. Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465-486. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259. Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource: Regulatory depletion pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774-789.

137

Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 601-614. Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1215-1229. Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154. Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25, 833-848. Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835-852. Parkinson, B. (1991). Emotional stylists: Strategies of expressive management among trainee hairdressers. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 419-434. Parkinson, B. (1996). Emotions are social. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 663-683. Parkinson, B., & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 277-303. Parkinson, B., Totterdell, P., Briner, R. B., & Reynolds, S. (1996). Changing moods: The psychology of mood and mood regulation. London: Longman. Parrott, W. G. (1993). Beyond : Motives for inhibiting good modds and for maintaining bad moods. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp.278-305). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Parrott, W. G. (2001). Implications of dysfunctional emotions for understanding how emotions function. Review of General Psychology, 5, 180-186. Parrott, W. G., & Spackman, M. P. (2000). . In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 476-490). New York: Guildford Press. Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill: An antidote for workpalce stressors. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 115-123. Perrewé, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict stressors. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141-152. Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14, 350-360. Plutchik, R. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience (Vol. 1, pp. 3-33). San Diego: CA: Academic Press. Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (2002). Police and tragic events: The management of emotions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 395-403. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. A. (1998). Cultural influences on emotional expression: Implications for intercultural communication. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 451-472). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 125-154.

138

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in service encounters. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1018-1027. Pugh, S. D. (2002). Emotional regulation in individuals and dyads: Causes, costs, and consequences. In R. G. Lord & R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace (pp. 147-182). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 36-57). London: Sage. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 1- 42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 749-775. Remiraz, 2004. Working paper. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. D. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112. Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one's cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410-424. Richman, J. A. (1988). Deviance from sex-linked expressivity norms and psychological distress. Social Forces, 67, 208-215. Rothlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. (1949). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. 1987. Emotion and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp.245-280). New York: Wiley. Rutter, P. R., & Fielding, P. J. (1988). Sources of occupational stress: An examination of British prison officers. Work and Stress, 2, 292-299. Salovey, P., Hsee, C. K., & Mayer, J. D. (1993). Emotional intelligence and the self-regulation of affect. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 258-277). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 163-183. Scherer, K. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177. Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561). New York: Guilford. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being; Informative functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.

139

Shields, S. A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shuler, S., & Sypher, B. D. (2000). Seeking emotional labor: When managing the heart enhances the work experience. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 50-89. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15-37. Smith III, A. C., & Kleinman, S. (1989). Managing emotions in medical school: Students' contacts with the living and the dead. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 56-69. Solomon, R. C. (2000). The philosophy of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 3-15). New York: Guildford Press. Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder- but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304- 331. Stenross, B., & Kleinman, S. (1989). The highs and lows of emotional labor. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17, 435-452. Surakka, V., & Hietanen, J. K. (1998). Facial and emotional reactions to Duchenne and non Duchenne smiles. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 23-33. Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245-268. Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 461-487. Tax, S., Brown, S., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 60, 60-76. Thoits, P. A. (1989). The sociology of emotions. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 317-342. Thoits, P. A. (1990). Emotional deviance: Research agendas. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 180-206). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Thoits, P. A. (1996). Managing the emotions of others. Symbolic Interaction, 19, 85-109. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition., Monographs of the society for research in child development (Vol. 59 (Serial No. 240)). Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149-159. Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 86-94. Tolich, M. B. (1993). Alienating and liberating emotions at work: Supermarket clerks' performance of customer service. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 361-381. Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848-859. Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a model of emotional labor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 55-73. Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1504-1515. Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90-128.

140

Tsai, W. (2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive emotions. Journal of Management, 27, 497-512. Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219-230. Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). "Real feelings": Emotion expression and organizational culture. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 43-103). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Walden, T. A., & Smith, M. C. (1997). Emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 7-25. Waldron, V. R. (1994). Once more with feeling: Reconsidering the role of emotion in work. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 17, pp. 251-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Waldron, V. R. (2000). Relational experiences and emotion at work. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in Organizations. London: Sage. 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. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In D. T. Gibert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 446-496). New York: McGraw-Hill. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Zanakos, S. (1993). Ironic processes in the mental control of mood and mood related thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1093-1107. 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. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance Scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555 Wharton, A. S., & Erickson, R. J. (1993). Managing emotions on the job and at home: Understanding the consequences of multiple emotional roles. Academy of Management Review, 18, 457-486. White, G. M. (1990). Moral discourse and the rhetoric of emotions. In C. A. Lutz & L. Abu- Lughod (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion (pp. 46-68). New York: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396. Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36, 453-486. Witt, L. A. (1999). This job is too much: Emotional labor on the job. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Wouters, C. (1989). The sociology of emotions and flight attendants: Hochschild's Managed Heart. Theory, Culture & Society, 6, 95-123.

141

Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237-268. Zapf, D., Seifert, C., Schmutte, B., Mertini, H., & Holz, M. (2001). Emotion work and job stressors and their effects on burnout. Psychology and Health, 16, 527-545. Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion work as a source of stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 371-400. Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional support: Coping in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 459-467. Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 53- 111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Zurcher, L. A. (1982). The staging of emotion: A dramaturgical analysis. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 1-22.

142

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

EDUCATION Ph.D. Candidate, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Primary Area: Organizational Behavior/Human Resource Management Support Area: Strategic Management Degree expected – Fall 2006 Bachelor of International Business Management East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, P. R. China, 1995.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A.T., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528. Liu, Y., & Yang, J. (in press). Mechanisms linking climate for service and customer outcomes: The role of emotion. Journal of Foodservice Business Research (Special issue: Organizational behavior and human resource management in foodservice). Thatcher, J. B., Liu, Y., Stepina, L., Treadway, D., & Goodman, J. (In press). IT worker turnover: An empirical examination of intrinsic motivation. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems. Liu, Y., & Perrewé, P.L. (2006). Are they for real? The intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes of perceived authenticity. International Journal of Work Organization and Emotions, 1 (Special issue: Emotive perception at work), 204-214. Liu, Y., & Perrewé, P.L. (2006). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: A process model. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 263-280. Perrewé, P.L., Zellars, K.L., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G.R., Kacmar, C., Liu, Y., Zinko, R., & Hochwarter, W.A. (2005). Political skill as a form of control: An antidote in the role overload – strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 239- 250. Reus, T.H., & Liu, Y. (2004). Rhyme or reason: The role of emotion in the performance of knowledge-intensive work groups. Human Performance, 17 (Special issue: Emotion and performance), 245-266. Zellars, K.L., Liu, Y., Bratton, V., Brymer, R., & Perrewé, P.L. (2004). An examination of the dysfunctional consequences of injustice and escapist coping. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 528-545. Liu, Y., Perrewé, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., & Kacmar, C. J. (2004). Dispositional antecedents and performance-related consequences of emotional labor at work. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 12-25.

143

Thatcher, J., Srite, M., Stepina, L., & Liu, Y. (2003). Culture, overload and personal innovativeness with information technology: Extending the nomological net. Journal of Computer Information System, 44, 74-81.

SELECTED CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Liu, Y., & Prati, M.L. (2006). The influence of emotional resources on emotional labor. To be presented at the annual Southern Management Association conference to be held in Clearwater, FL. (Recipient of Best Doctoral Student Paper Award of the OB/OD/OT track) Liu, Y., Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., Weitz, B., & Xu, J. (2006). Predictors and outcomes of political skill and reputation in organizations: A three-study investigation with convergence. To be presented at the annual Southern Management Association conference to be held in Clearwater, FL. Liu, Y., Perrewé, P.L., Guo, Y. (2006). Follower emotion regulation, LMX, and outcomes: A cross-cultural examination. Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management conference to be held in Atlanta, GA. Liu, Y. (2005). Does political skill help individuals savor the good things at work? Paper presented at the 4th International Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC. Yang, J., Liu, Y., & Mossholder, K. (2005). Mechanisms linking climate for service and customer outcomes: The role of emotion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francesco. Perrewé, P.L., Zellars, K., Rossi, A.M., Kacmar, C.J., Liu, Y., Zinko, R., Hochwarter, W.A., & Ferris, G. R. (2004). Political skill as a form of control: An antidote in the role overload – strain relationship. Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference meeting, New Orleans, LA. Xu, J., Weitz, B., & Liu, Y. (2004). When should salespeople use electronic mail? A relational perspective. Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference meeting, New Orleans, LA. Liu, Y., Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Prati, L. M., Hochwarter, W.A., & Perrewé, P.L. (2004). The emotion of politics and the politics of emotions: Affective and cognitive reactions to politics as a stressor. Paper presented at the annual Southern Management Association conference meeting, San Antonio, TX. Liu, Y., Perrewé, P.L., & Xu, J. (2003). Emotional communication between supervisor and subordinate and quality of LMX: A cross-cultural examination. Symposium presentation for the 18th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Florida. Liu, Y., & Perrewé, P.L. (2003). Emotional regulation, emotional capability, and group effectiveness: A cross-level conceptualization of the role of emotion in work groups. Paper presented at the annual Southern Management Association conference meeting, Clear Water, FL.

144

Hall, A.T., Liu, Y., & Combs, J. (2003). Human resource management and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual Southern Management Association conference meeting, Clear Water, FL. Liu, Y., Gundlach, M., & Bratton, G. (2002). Individual resistance to change: A multi- dimensional examination and a model. Paper presented at the Southern Management Association conference meeting, Atlanta, GA. De Witt, T., & Liu, Y. (2002). The customer orientation-loyalty model: The role of emotional contagion and rapport in the service encounter. Paper presented at the annual Summer Marketing Educators Conference. Liu, Y., & Perrewé, P.L. (2001). The role of emotion and emotional expression in job satisfaction. Presented at the annual Southern Management Association conference meeting, New Orleans, LA.

INVITED PRESENTATIONS Liu, Y. (2006). The role of emotion regulation in social interactions at work. Presented at the Ph.D student research workshop of the Emonet conference, Atlanta, GA. Liu, Y. (2004). Getting your research work published in North American journals: Some experiences and thoughts. Presented to the graduate students and faculty members of the College of Business and Economics, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.

ACADEMIC HONORS Outstanding Reviewer Award, Academy of Management, OB division (2006) Best Doctoral Student Paper Award, Southern Management Association, OB/OT/OD track (2006) International Positive Psychology Summit fellow (2005) Doctoral Student Consortium participant, Human Resource Division of the Academy of Management (2003). University Fellowship, Florida State University (2001–2003) Doctoral Student Consortium participant, Southern Management Association (2001). Presidential University Research Fellowship, Florida State University (2000-2001) College of Business Fellowship, Florida State University (2000-2005)

AFFILIATIONS Academy of Management Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Southern Management Association Emonet (an international interest group on emotion in organizations) International Society for Research on Emotion

145

SERVICES Discussant, Emonet conference (2006) Discussant, Southern Management association (2003-2004). Reviewer, Academy of Management conference (2003, 2004, 2006). Reviewer, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2006-2007). Reviewer, Southern Management Association conference (2004-2006). Reviewer, Western Academy of Management conference (2004). Reviewer, Emonet conference (2002-2006). Reviewer, International Western Academy of Management conference (2002). Reviewer, Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management (IBAM) conference (2002).

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Simens China Corporation Shanghai General Motors Project, Shanghai, P. R. China (1999-2000). Commercial Officer –Tier II supplier work order status reporting; Coordinating between work shops and purchasing group regarding work order issues; Work shops and purchasing group performance analysis; Tier II supplier management procedure setup and improvement. Exxon Chemical Service Corporation, Shanghai, P. R. China (1998-1999). Business Analyst (Temporary worker) – Sales forecast and product planning; Sales and key accounts performance evaluation and analysis; Logistic expenses tracking and analysis. L’Oreal China Cosmetics Corporation, Shanghai, P.R. China (1997-1999). Sales Administrator – Evaluating prior sales and prepared sales forecast; Analyzing distributor inventory level and cycling situation; Analyzing product performance and pricing strategy; Coordinating with finance, logistic and marketing departments regarding product supply, product issues and promotion activities. China Industrial Management and Investment Company, Shanghai, P.R. China (1995- 1997). Financial Analyst – Assisting in developing annual financial budget and followed up execution of the budget; Consolidating monthly income statement and balance sheet; Developing monthly financial analysis report and operational situation report to senior management.

146