Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 16, No. 2, 170–186 1076-8998/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021725 Emotional Display Rules as Work Unit Norms: A Multilevel Analysis of Emotional Labor Among Nurses James M. Diefendorff Alicia A. Grandey and Rebecca J. Erickson Pennsylvania State University University of Akron Jason J. Dahling The College of New Jersey Emotional labor theory has conceptualized emotional display rules as shared norms governing the expression of emotions at work. Using a sample of registered nurses working in different units of a hospital system, we provided the first empirical evidence that display rules can be represented as shared, unit-level beliefs. Additionally, controlling for the influence of dispositional affectivity, individual-level display rule perceptions, and emotion regulation, we found that unit-level display rules are associated with individual-level job satisfaction. We also showed that unit-level display rules relate to burnout indirectly through individual-level display rule perceptions and emotion regulation strategies. Finally, unit-level display rules also interacted with individual-level dispo- sitional affectivity to predict employee use of emotion regulation strategies. We discuss how future research on emotional labor and display rules, particularly in the health care setting, can build on these findings. Keywords: emotional display rules, emotional labor, emotions, health care, job burnout Stimulated by Ekman and Friesen’s (1975) notion positive emotions and suppressing negative emo- of social–cultural emotional norms and Hochschild’s tions, also known as integrative display rules (1983) ideas of emotional labor, organizational re- (Wharton & Erickson, 1993), are common in “people searchers adopted the term display rules to describe work” jobs (e.g., health care, education, service; the expressive expectations placed on employees as Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002) and are viewed as part of the occupational or organizational context in-role job requirements by employees and their su- (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Rafaeli & Sutton, pervisors (Diefendorff, Richard, & Croyle, 2006). 1989; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). According to Display rules are typically conceptualized as “a set the emotional labor literature, display rules shape of shared, albeit often latent rules” (Hochschild, employee emotional displays in ways that facilitate 1983, p. 268) that can vary based on occupational the attainment of organizational objectives (e.g., cus- norms or sociocultural differences (Ashforth & Hum- tomer satisfaction, team morale). This literature has phrey, 1993; Ekman, 1973). However, empirical re- provided evidence that display rules for expressing search has yet to examine whether employees actu- ally share display rule beliefs and what effect these shared beliefs might have on emotional labor pro- This article was published Online First January 17, 2011. cesses. The present study extends the literature on James M. Diefendorff, Department of Psychology, Uni- emotional display rules in three ways. First, we de- versity of Akron; Rebecca J. Erickson, Department of So- velop the idea that display rules are, in part, shared ciology, University of Akron; Alicia A. Grandey, Depart- ment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University; and norms derived from unit- or group-level characteris- Jason J. Dahling, Department of Psychology, The College tics, as implied by previous authors (Bartel & Saave- of New Jersey. dra, 2000; Kelly & Barsade, 2001). We focus on This research was supported by a grant (1 D1D HP employees in one occupational group (i.e., nursing) 00004-010) from the Health Resources and Services Ad- ministration. We thank Erin Richard and Christina Saluan and one organization (i.e., a hospital system) and for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this assess whether display rules exhibit shared properties article. at the work unit level of analysis. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- Second, we test key theoretical points in the emo- dressed to James M. Diefendorff, Department of Psychol- ogy, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301. tional labor literature by incorporating both unit-level E-mail: [email protected] display rules and individual-level display rule per- 170 EMOTIONAL DISPLAY RULES 171 ceptions in our research design. Specifically, we than in other contexts (Brunton, 2005; Erickson & compare theoretical proposals that display rules re- Grove, 2008b; Henderson, 2001). Given the high late to employee well-being indirectly through the turnover rates and high demand for health care work- emotion regulation performed by employees ers in the United States, understanding factors that (Grandey, 2000) and directly, as a result of feeling affect the well-being of nurses is of practical signif- controlled by work requirements (Gosserand & Die- icance. In what follows, we develop and test the fendorff, 2005). In testing the effects of unit-level theoretical relationships depicted in Figure 1. display rules in emotional labor processes, we con- sider whether shared beliefs have unique effects be- Display Rules as a Unit-Level Concept yond individual-level display rule perceptions or whether unit-level effects operate through these em- Although typically studied as individual-level per- ployee perceptions. ceptions, display rules have been argued to vary at both Third, although previous theory implies that how the occupational and organizational levels. Before one typically feels should interact with display rules Hochschild’s work, Ekman and Friesen (1975) pointed to predict emotion regulation (Diefendorff & Gosser- out that display rules varied as a function of occupa- and, 2003), empirical work has primarily examined tional requirements. For example, nurses are socialized the main effects of display rules and employee affect to express compassion, caring, and empathy (Hinds, on emotion regulation (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, Quargnenti, Hickey, & Mangum, 1994) at the same 2002; Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005; Gos- time that they are encouraged to develop a level of serand & Diefendorff, 2005; Grandey, 2003; Totter- professional detachment (Carmack, 1997; Savett, 2000; dell & Holman, 2003; for exceptions, see Beal, Trou- Stephany, 1989; Stowers, 1983). At the organizational gakos, Weiss, & Green, 2006; Bono & Vey, 2007; level, display rules are thought to be shaped and per- Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). We examine whether petuated by informal company-specific culture (e.g., unit-level display rules and individual affectivity in- language, symbols and stories, informal social conse- teract to predict emotion regulation strategies and quences for display rule violation), as well as formal provide the first test of such interactive effects in a policies and practices (e.g., selection, recruitment, so- field study. cialization, reward systems; Arvey, Renz, & Watson, Previous research has frequently focused on cus- 1998; Martin, Knopff, & Beckman, 1998; Van Maanen tomer service employees (e.g., sales; Tsai, 2001) or & Kunda, 1989). Thus, there is evidence that emotional employees from a heterogeneous set of occupations display rules operate at levels of analysis higher than (e.g., Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). We focus on the that of individual perceptions. emotionally charged context of hospital nurses, Furthermore, we suggest that display rules will which may make display rules even more meaningful emerge in, and vary by, work groups as well (Kelly & Unit-Level Integrative Display Rules Employee Dispositional Emotional Well-being Affectivity Labor Strategies - Job satisfaction - Positive - Surface Acting - Burnout - Negative -Deep Acting Figure 1. Theoretical model. Gray shading indicates unit-level construct; all others are at the individual level. The effects of individual-level display rule perceptions on each of these theoretical links are examined. 172 DIEFENDORFF, ERICKSON, GRANDEY, AND DAHLING Barsade, 2001). Consistent with this view, Bartel and ing is common (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; see also Saavedra (2000) theorized that social norms guide Smith, 1992; Smith & Kleinman, 1989). Moreover, team members’ expressions of their moods, and by overlooking these unit-level norms, previous re- Kelly and Barsade (2001) suggested that work groups search has not fully modeled how display rules in- may come to perceive local “emotion norms” that fluence employee behavior (e.g., emotion regulation) differ from or even supersede (Barker, 1993) the and outcomes (e.g., attitudes, stress), as unit-level formal display rules of the organization or occupa- emotional display rules may represent a unique tion. One qualitative study demonstrated that differ- source of influence on emotion management and ent units of The Body Shop developed distinct group- well-being. Furthermore, we propose that unit-level level norms that firmly controlled emotional behavior display rules may combine with individual level dis- (Martin et al., 1998). positional affect to predict emotion regulation. Such local emotional display norms are likely to be shaped by top-down, contextual factors as well as bottom-up, emergent properties of the social environ- Main Effects of Unit-Level Display Rules ment (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In addition to the on Emotional Regulation and Well-Being distal top-down influences of occupation and organi- zation, more proximal top-down influences on work- Generally, the presence of display rules is linked to unit