Measuring Emotional Labour: A Construct Validation and Cross- Validation Study

Transcription

1 Measuring Emotional Labour: A Construct Validation and Cross- Validation Study Ms Catherine Jordan Graduate School of Management, University of Western Australia, Australia catherine.jordan@uwa.edu.au Dr Sandra Kiffin-Petersen Graduate School of Management, University of Western Australia, Australia sandra. kiffin-petersen@uwa.edu.au Professor Geoff Soutar Graduate School of Management, University of Western Australia, Australia geoff.soutar@uwa.edu.au 1

2 Measuring Emotional Labour: A Construct Validation and Cross- Validation Study ABSTRACT Emotional labour (EL) refers to mechanisms employees use to adjust their outward expression of emotion, during customer-employee exchanges, and in order to meet organisational expectations. Consistent with guidelines for demonstrating the psychometric properties of a construct, it is important to measure the reliability and validity of such instruments to determine their usefulness for future research. To date, no research known to the current researchers has validated the commonlyused EL scale through a cross-validation procedure. The results of this study provide support for a two-factor model of EL, with dimensions of surface and deep acting, which is invariant across the two samples of nurses. This research confirms the generalisability and usefulness of this scale in measuring EL in the workplace. Keywords: Emotional labour, measurement model, construct validation INTRODUCTION Emotional Labour (EL) was first defined by Hochschild (1983:7) as the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial or bodily display; emotional labor is sold for a wage and therefore has exchange value. According to this definition EL is an expected part of many occupations, especially but not exclusively in service industries. Data from the 2001 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census shows that 55% (compared to 44% in 1991) of employed persons within Australia are potentially in occupations that have high emotional demands based on the occupational groups identified by Hochschild. The pervasiveness of EL has been attributed, in part, to the rapid growth of the service sector economy, which has created jobs with high EL demands (Glomb, Kammeyer- Mueller and Rotundo, 2004). Hochschild s (1983) original research and more recent studies have shown that EL can negatively impact on employees well-being across a wide range of occupational groups including nurses (Smith, 1992), theme park operators (van Maanen and Kunda, 1989), counsellors (Mann, 2004), barristers (Harris, 2002), beauticians (Sharma and Black, 2001), call centre workers (Korczynski, 2003; Lewig and Dollard, 2003), and even debt collectors (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991, Sutton, 1991). The negative impact of EL on employees can include increased stress (Adelmann, 1995; Morris and Feldman, 2

3 1997; Pugliesi, 1999), high levels of emotional exhaustion or burnout (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002; Erickson and Ritter, 2001, Grandey, 2000, Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Wharton, 1993), and lowered job satisfaction (Lewig and Dollard, 2003; Pugliesi, 1999; Wharton, 1999). Deadrick and McAfee (2001) also suggest that employees who are required to provide service with a smile are at greater risk of sexual harassment by customers. Consequently, understanding both the nature of EL and the extent to which employees experience EL while performing their jobs should be a priority for researchers. Without such an understanding, management strategies for reducing the potentially negative impact of EL on employees cannot be developed. Nevertheless, Glomb and Tews (2004) recently concluded that despite a recent shift to more quantitative investigations of EL (e.g. Brotheridge and Lee, 2003; Grandey, 2003; Diefendorff, Croyle and Gosserand, 2005; Schaubroeck and Jones, 2000), the various methodological approaches used in past studies of EL (e.g. archival, interviews, observations, surveys) have tended to result in conceptual and operational confusion over its nature. There is therefore an urgent need to refine the measurement of EL to ensure that the measures available are both conceptually and psychometrically sound. Emotional Labour Defined The original definition of EL by Hochschild (1983: 7) as the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial or bodily display conceptualises EL as in-role or as those behaviours that are required or expected of an employee in the performance of their assigned work role and that are recognised through the organisation s formal reward systems (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Hochschild (1983: 7) also differentiated EL from emotion work with the latter defined as, the same acts done in a private context where they have use value. Emotion work for example, is potentially involved in employee to employee interactions which are considered discretionary or extra-role activities because they benefit the organisation and go beyond prescribed role expectations. Since Hochschild s original conceptualisation of EL, a number of other definitions have been advanced (see Grandey (2000) and Zapf (2002) for reviews), contributing to the conceptual and operational confusion which 3

4 currently exists (Glomb and Tews, 2004). Three main conceptualisations of EL have been advanced in the literature: (1) EL as an external behavioural display (e.g. Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Glomb and Tews, 2004; Morris and Feldman, 1996); (2) EL as emotional dissonance (e.g. Adelmann, 1995; Kruml and Geddes, 2000); and (3) EL as a process of internal emotional regulation (e.g. Brotheridge and Lee, 1998; Grandey, 2000). For example, Ashforth and Humphrey (1993:90) define emotional labour as the act of displaying appropriate emotion (i.e. conforming with a display rule) ; Kruml and Geddes conceptualise EL as emotional dissonance and emotive effort; and finally, Grandey (2000: 97) defines EL as the process of regulating both feelings and expressions for organisational goals. However, common to all three conceptualisations is the notion that EL involves managing emotions and emotional expression to conform to occupational or organisational display rules (Glomb and Tews, 2004). Managing emotions to create an emotional display to conform to specific display rules typically requires some form of self-regulation on the part of the employee. Adopting a dramaturgical perspective, Hochschild (1983) suggested that the work setting is a stage on which the employee (actor) performs for an audience (the customer). When employees attempt to regulate their emotional displays in order to meet societal, occupational or organisational norms they experience emotional dissonance (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993). Employees may manage the resulting emotional dissonance (i.e. the difference between felt and expressed emotions) by engaging in either surface or deep acting (Hochschild, 1983). Surface acting, also known as faking in bad faith (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987: 32) refers to exhibiting an emotional display that is not genuinely felt (e.g. happiness, friendliness) or inhibiting the expression of a genuinely felt emotion (e.g. anger, irritation). Whereas in deep acting, also known as faking in good faith (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987: 32), the employee tries to change their actual emotional state so as to be able to genuinely display the required emotion. Hence, both surface and deep acting are self-regulation processes which produce behavioural emotional displays, albeit through differing mechanisms. Because of these complex interrelationships, Glomb and Tews (2004) therefore suggest that the three conceptualisations of EL are complementary, rather than opposing dimensions. Our conceptualisation of EL focuses primarily on the internal 4

5 regulation processes of surface acting and deep acting as these processes connect emotional dissonance with the behavioural display of emotional labour. Measurement of Emotional Labour Three main methodological approaches to the study of EL and hence, its measurement can be identified in the literature: (1) archival studies that identify the occupational groups requiring EL and rank them in terms of their emotional demands; (2) exploratory qualitative research aimed at understanding the content and consequences of EL in specific occupations; and (3) quantitative studies which attempt to measure EL and examine its antecedents and consequences. The origin of the first line of research is Hochschild s (1983) seminal work which included an extensive study focused on identifying occupations that require emotional labour, using the 1965 US Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). Applying her three-item criteria of (1) personal contact with the public, (2) the production of a state of mind in others, and (3) the monitoring of emotional labour by supervisors, except in true professions, Hochschild was able to distinguish six occupational groupings requiring EL. The occupational groups were professional and technical workers, managers and administrators, sales workers, clerical workers, service workers excluding private household, and private household workers. Using Hochschild s original classification scheme, Wharton (1993) also sought to categorise occupations into those that involved EL and those that did not, finding that 64% of the sample held jobs involving EL. Recent research by Glomb et al. (2004), using data from four large-scale US government databases (i.e. Occupational Network, DOT, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, Current Population Survey), of some 560 occupations found that the jobs highest in emotional labour demands were frequently found in protective services, health care, or counselling. Surprisingly, Glomb et al. (2004) found that although customer service jobs were higher in emotional labour demands than average, they were not in the top 15 jobs for emotional labour content. While categorising occupational groups according to their emotional demands provides useful information, this line of research is limited in that it does not differentiate between different types of EL, such as 5

6 surface and deep acting, allow a comparison of jobs within occupations, or permit the examination of relationships between other constructs and EL at the individual level. The second line of research into EL has been typically exploratory in nature as researchers sought initially to describe the nature and potential consequences of EL. Much of this research has focused on specific occupations such as the studies by Harris (2002) of barristers, Sutton (1991) of bill collectors, Korczynski (2003) of call centre workers, and Shuler and Sypher (2000) of 911 dispatchers. For example, based on interviews and observations of barristers at work Harris developed a model specifying the origins, content and consequences of EL for the legal profession. Similarly, in Korczynski s (2003) study of call centre workers two researchers spent three weeks full-time conducting semi-structured interviews and observing the labour process. The interviews and observations revealed that workers tended to turn to each other for support when dealing with irate customers, and hence, informal communities of coping emerged in the call centres. Likewise, in a case study of 911 dispatchers, Shuler and Sypher (2000) analysed data from interviews, observations and selected calls, and concluded that EL in this particular context was seen as a fun and rewarding part of their work. However, one of the limitations of this line of research is that the findings are potentially context-specific, thereby limiting the generalisability of the conclusions. Further, such research does not allow for the testing of causal relationships or develop our understanding of the internal regulation processes involved in EL that may be better investigated using reliable and valid self-report instruments. Recent research into EL has therefore moved away from categorical and qualitative approaches towards efforts to measure the amount of emotional labour required by different employees in different occupations using various measures. Consistent with our earlier discussion, the various instruments developed to measure EL have operationalised EL as a behaviour, emotional dissonance, or internal process. Glomb and Tews (2004) have recently developed a measure of EL called the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (DEELS) which departs significantly from previous research both conceptually and operationally, in that it focuses on measuring the behaviour of 6

7 emotional expression, including genuine, faked and suppressed emotions. While Glomb and Tews provide evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the DEELS, operationalising EL in such a way provides little understanding of the internal processes involved in the generation of the expressed emotion, nor whether the different processes may have differential effects on employees well-being (Brotheridge and Lee, 2003). Diefendorff and Gosserand (2003) have also highlighted the need to understand the underlying causal mechanism involved in a person regulating their emotional displays, rather than the overt expression of those emotions. Measures that operationalise EL as emotional dissonance include those developed by Morris and Feldman (1996; 1997), Adelmann (1995) and Zapf, Vogt, Seifert, Mertini and Isic (2001). Morris and Feldman focused on the difference between the felt emotions and the displayed emotions of the employee. It was hypothesised that the larger the difference, the greater the amount of emotional labour, the greater the negative impact to the employee in terms of burnout and stress. Morris and Feldman developed a specific scale to measure the role requirements when performing EL. In particular, the intensity of emotion displayed, the frequency of EL interactions, the variety of emotions, and the duration of emotional displays in the workplace were included. Kruml and Geddes (2000) adopted a similar approach where they measured EL as a combination of emotional effort and emotional dissonance. Adelmann s emotional labour scale as cited and used by Abraham (1999a, 1999b, 2000) measured the intensity of actual feelings and expressed feelings then subtracted one from the other to calculate an emotional dissonance value. Finally, Zapf et al. developed the Frankfurt Emotion Work Scales (FEWS) which includes a measure of emotional dissonance assessing the level of suppression of organisationally undesirable emotions and the display of unfelt emotions. Despite these approaches, Grandey (1999) has argued strongly against equating emotional dissonance with emotional labour because emotional dissonance is an internal state, and thus this conceptualisation is incongruent with the definition of EL. The most commonly used measure of EL in recent years is the Emotional Labour Scale (ELS) developed by Brotheridge and Lee (1998; 2003) (for applications of the ELS see Brotheridge and Lee, 7

8 1998, 2003; Diefendorff et al., 2005; Grandey, 2003; Zammuner and Galli, 2005). This scale measures the internal processes involved in managing EL, surface and deep acting, as described by Hochschild (1983) and therefore offers a promising way forward in future research into EL. As discussed previously, Hochschild (1983) postulated that employees use strategies, not dissimilar to those used by professional actors, for managing emotions in their exchanges with clients or customers. Grandey (2000) also advocates the use of surface and deep acting measures as these measures are closely aligned with general emotion theory. There is no research known to the present authors that has assessed the psychometric properties of the ELS (Brotheridge and Lee, 1998; 2003) through validation and cross-validation methods across two samples. Resent research by Brotheridge and Lee using nested model comparisons, found that a sixfactor model of EL which included measures of surface acting, deep acting, variety, frequency, duration and intensity was superior in terms of its fit to the data than a four-factor model which included surface acting, deep acting, frequency, and one other mixed factor. This study, however, did not confirm these findings across two samples and furthermore used samples that included nonservice workers where the generalisability of such findings is compromised. Other research has found support for the two-factor model of EL when modelling relationships between antecedents and outcome variables (Brotheridge and Lee, 2002, 2003; Grandey, 2003; Zammuner and Galli, 2005), where surface acting and deep acting emerge as separate dimensions of EL. Studies that have confirmed the emergence of two dimensions have generally used exploratory or confirmatory factory analysis (Brotheridge and Lee, 2003; Grandey, 2003; Zammuner and Galli, 2005). These methods are useful in determining the factor structure for the current sample, but do not have the rigour to generalise the measurement model beyond a single sample. A method that improves on this practice is the application of a cross-validation procedure that tests the model for invariance across two or more groups. Preferably this is conducted with data derived from two or more samples from different organisations. However, in the absence of such data a useful alternative is to randomly split a single large sample into two equal sub-samples and conduct the analyses. The model is then 8

9 tested for equivalence in each sample. A detailed explanation of this procedure is provided later in this paper. The factorial invariance of EL across samples can have important implications for EL research and the usefulness of the EL scale. THE PRESENT RESEARCH In an attempt to replicate previous research and extend research in the area of EL, the following research was carried out. This study is significant for the following reasons: To-date few studies have researched EL with an Australian sample; Most EL research has focused on samples of frontline workers. The current research presents findings for two samples of nurses which are considered associate professionals as defined by the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations. This helps to generalise the findings of EL beyond the shop-floor. No research to-date, known to the present authors, has attempted to cross-validate the EL scale to determine the reliability and validity of the two dimensions that measure EL. Research Aims and Hypotheses The present study, which is discussed in subsequent sections, tested Brotheridge and Lees s (2003) EL scale across different samples, to see whether support could be found for its two-factor (surface and deep acting) structure. The model was estimated within the first sample and its generalisability was examined within the second sample. In both cases a competing models confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach was used to examine this issue, which led to the following hypotheses: The Study Hypothesis 1: The two factor model of EL, as specified by Brotheridge and Lee (2003), will be valid for nursing staff in samples 1 and 2. Hypothesis 2: The two-factor model of EL will be invariant across the two samples of nurses. Hypothesis 3: The two-factor model of EL will be superior to a one-factor model. 9

10 The required data that measured emotional labour were collected from two organisations. The first was a large private hospital. Respondents included enrolled and registered nurses and nurse managers who were in direct, daily contact with patients. Glomb et al. (2004) found that nurses ranked fifth highest among 560 occupations in terms of their emotional labour demands making this population suitable for a construct and cross validation study. Seven hundred surveys were distributed and 200 completed surveys were returned, providing a response rate of 29 percent. The second was a community-based health care organisation that also provided a wide range of services, mainly to the elderly. The sample also included enrolled and registered nurses who were in direct, daily contact with patients. It did not include carers. Three hundred and thirty surveys were distributed and 173 completed surveys were returned, providing a response rate of 52 percent. As can be seen in Table 1, respondents in both organisations had similar backgrounds. For example, enrolled nurses made up 74 percent of sample 1 and 81 percent of sample 2. Table 1: Background data for the two samples Background Variables Nursing Category Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2 (n = 200) (n = 173) (n = 200) (n = 173) Count % Count % Count % Count % Employment Type Enrolled Full-time Registered Part-time Nurse Casual Manager Other Missing Missing Education Age High school < 24 years Certificate years Diploma years Advanced Diploma years Bachelors > 55 years Graduate Qualifications Missing Other Missing The data were obtained as part of a larger study that examined a number of work issues in both organisations, but both questionnaires included measures of emotional labour, which were of interest 10

11 to this study. Some antecedents (such as job characteristics and workload) and outcomes (such as turnover intention, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment) were also included. Background data, such as age, education, highest education attained, nursing category, length of service, employment type (full-time, part-time), were also obtained, but were not central to the present paper. In the present study, the two suggested EL dimensions were measured using the 12-item scale developed by Brotheridge and Lee (2002) and Grandey (1999), which is based on the scale developed by Brotheridge and Lee (1998). All of the items, were measured on a seven-point scale that ranged from never (1) to always (5) and, as can be seen from Table 2, the means and standard deviations were comparable for the two samples. The means ranged from of 2.1 to 3.1, indicating moderate levels of emotional labour for the two organisations. The standard deviations were all around one, suggesting a good spread in the data set. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to refine the measures of emotional labour. Specific details of the analyses are provided in a later part of this paper. The CFA resulted in a reduction to the number of items measuring each scale. The final model contained six items, shown in Table 7, three measuring surface acting and three measuring deep acting. The internal reliability (alpha coefficient) of the surface acting scale for the three items was 0.83 in sample 1 and 0.84 in sample 2. The internal reliability (alpha coefficient) of the deep acting scale for the three items was 0.85 in sample 1 and 0.89 in sample 2. As the purpose of the present study was to examine the appropriateness of the suggested EL structure, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach was undertaken using the AMOS software package (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999). The sample of 200 employees obtained from organisation 1 was used to test the goodness of fit of the suggested two-factor measurement model, while the sample of 173 employees from the second organisation was used to test the model s generalisability. Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for the Two Suggested EL Sub-scales Surface Acting Sample 1 Sample 2 EL Item Mean Std Dev. Mean Std Dev. 11

12 Just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job? Resist expressing my true feelings? Pretend to have emotions that I don t really have? Fake a good mood around my patients/clients? Put on a show or performance around the patients/clients? Put on an act in order to deal with patients/clients in an appropriate way? Put on a mask in order to express the right emotions for the job? Hide my true feelings about a situation from the patients/clients? Deep Acting Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display towards patients/clients? Try to actually experience the emotions that I must show to patients/clients? Work hard to feel the emotions that I need to show to patients/clients? Really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my job? A number of possible goodness of fit statistics can be used to test a suggested factor structure, of which the chi-squared statistic is the most common. However, the chi-square statistic alone should not be relied on as it is influenced by sample size and is likely to produce a significant result, even when there is a relatively good fit (Bentler and Bonett, 1980). Therefore, other fit indices were also used in the present study (namely the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index s (TLI), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and the root mean square error for approximation (RMSEA)). The initial CFA suggested that the proposed structure did not fit the data well (χ 2 = (53 df), p<0.05, CFI=.911, TLI=.889, GFI=.870, AGFI=.809). An iterative procedure was therefore used to improve the fit by removing items that cross-loaded or did not load onto their appropriate, hypothesised factor as demonstrated by the modification indices for the regression weights and covariances. As a consequence, the 12 items were reduced to 6 items (3 items that measured surface acting and 3 items that measured deep acting), as this model fitted the data well (χ 2 = (8 df), p>0.05, CFI=.990, TLI=.981, GFI=.978, AGFI=.943), supporting hypothesis 1. The equivalence of the model across the two samples was then examined to test its generalisability. Evidence of equivalence was based on tests of the invariance of the parameters in the two samples. That is, the parameters in the second organisation s model were constrained to be equal to the values 12

13 of the parameters obtained from the model estimated for the first organisation and its goodness of fit was determined. This was compared to the goodness of fit obtained when the second organisation s parameters were not constrained in this way. A series of chi-square difference tests were used to test the difference in fit between two nested models as such tests provide the needed evidence for equivalence (Bollen, 1989). Such invariance tests proceed in a hierarchical fashion, after the establishment of the best baseline model for each group separately (Byrne, Shavelson, and Muthen, 1989). Invariance is first sought between the baseline model and a model that has item-factor loadings constrained in any replication sample(s). If the results of the comparison are not statistically significant (i.e. the constrained parameters are equal across groups), then a comparison between this model and one in which the factor covariances are also constrained is performed (Bentler, 1995). A non-statistically significant result between these two nested models is evidence that the model is invariant across the samples. RESULTS The means, standard deviations, reliability estimates and intercorrelations for the two subscales for Samples 1 and 2 are shown in Table 3. It seems that there was reasonable variation in perceptions across both samples (as standard deviations ranged from 0.74 to 1.03). Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for the Emotional Labour Dimensions for Sample 1 and Sample 2 Sample 1 Mean SD Surface Acting Surface Acting Deep Acting Deep Acting Surface Acting ** Deep Acting Sample 2 Mean SD Surface Acting Deep Acting ** Note: n=200 for Sample 1; n=173 for Sample 2. Alpha reliabilities appear in the diagonal and correlation below. SD = Standard Deviation. ** significant 0.01 level. Convergent Validity Table 4 shows the convergent validities for the six EL items on each of the suggested EL constructs in both samples. The t-ratios for the loadings in both samples were all statistically significant, suggesting that all of the items were significantly related to their target constructs. However, there were some 13

14 differences in the size of the various loadings, which suggests that it would be useful to examine the equivalence of the model across the two samples. Table 4: Convergent Validity of the EL Scale displaying Standardised Factor Loadings Items 1 2 Sample 1 Sample 2 1. Surface Acting Just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job? Put on a show or performance around the patients? Put on an act in order to deal with patients in an appropriate way? Deep Acting Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display towards patients? Sample 1 Sample Try to actually experience the emotions that I must show to patients? Really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my job? The order of constraints in evaluating equivalence across groups is an issue of some disagreement. Bollen (1989) recommended a testing hierarchy from a baseline model that includes in addition to factor loading (lambda-x), error variances (theta-delta) and factor covariances (phi). However, Bentler (1995) suggested the equality of variances is least important, while Byrne (1994, p. 161) argued that testing the equality of error parameters represents an overly restrictive test of the data. It seems to be acceptable to constrain only the factor loadings and the factor covariances. In line with such recommendations, and the theoretical importance of the factor loadings and the factor covariances in this study, these sets of parameters were constrained in the present case. The majority of fit indices calculated for the single sample analysis were calculated by AMOS in the multi-sample analysis. Table 5 shows the chi-square difference tests with their associated degrees of freedom for the relevant nested models. After imposing all of the constraints for the invariance of the loadings across groups, the chi-square increment from the baseline was not statistically significant ( χ 2 = (4 df), p>0.05). In addition, when the factor loadings and the factor covariances across groups were both held constant, a statistically significant difference between nested models was not found ( χ 2 = (3 df), p>0.05). These results provide strong evidence for hypothesis 2 that the two-factor model can be generalised across the two sampled groups. 14

15 Table 5: Invariance Analysis Model χ 2 df χ 2 df CFI TLI GFI (AGFI) Baseline Model (0.95) Loadings Invariant (0.95) Loadings + Factor Covariances Invariant (0.96) RMSEA (90% CI) 0.03 ( ) 0.03 ( ) 0.03 ( ) Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CI = Confidence Interval. Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity was tested using a nested models approach similar to that used to test convergent validity. In this case, however, a baseline was used to compare a one-factor model of EL, where all items load on the same factor, to a two factor model, where items loaded onto their respective factors. The results are presented in Table 6. Table 6: Nested Models Comparing a One- and Two-Factor Model of EL Model χ 2 df χ 2 df CFI TLI GFI (AGFI) Sample 1 Two-Factor (0.94) One-Factor ** (0.34) Sample 2 Two-Factor (0.96) One-Factor ** (0.37) RMSEA (90% CI).06 ( ) 0.38 ( ) 0.00 ( ) 0.33 ( ) Note: **significant at 0.01 level. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CI = Confidence Interval. As can be seen in table 6, the one-factor model does not fit the data for either sample. In comparison, the two-factor model had a good fit for both samples (as previously discussed). In addition, when comparing the one-factor and two-factor model for each sample, through a nested models approach, it is clear that a two-factor model is superior to the one-factor model for both samples [sample 1 ( χ 2 = (1 df), p<0.01); sample 2 ( χ 2 = (1 df), p<0.01)]. This provides evidence for discriminant validity and, thus, a two-factor model is needed to measure EL. The two factor model is superior to the one-factor model for measuring EL, providing support for hypothesis 3. 15

16 DISCUSSION The present results support the suggestion that emotional labour has surface acting and deep acting dimensions. These findings have several implications for EL research. In conjunction with the results of previous studies, the present findings increase confidence in Grandey s (1990) two factor EL conceptualisation, first proposed by Brotheridge and Lee (1988). However, such findings should be seen as only the first step in confirming a model. Now that the measurement model has been crossvalidated, at least in the present health care context, it is necessary to test a structural EL model with both antecedent and outcome variables. Research to date has considered the relationship between EL and Burnout, Stress, and Job Satisfaction. However, outcome variables based on archival data, such as employee turnover, absenteeism and performance, need to be further investigated to avoid problems of common-method variance from self-report instruments. Further research in this area should also consider the use of the psychometrically robust six-item version of the EL instrument that emerged from the present study. The items that are relevant to this item were shown in Table 4. Additionally, models testing the causal relationships between EL and other variables of interest (e.g. stress) may find the current method of validation and cross-validation useful in terms of providing a method that generalises the results beyond the single-sample data set. 16

17 REFERENCES Adelmann, P Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S. L. Sauter and L. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress. Washington DC, American Psychological Association. Arbuckle, J.L., & Wothke, W. 1999, Amos 4.0 User s Guide, Chicago IL, SmallWaters Corporation. Ashforth, B. E., and Humphrey, R. H., 1993, 'Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity', Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, pp Bentler, P.M. 1995, EQS: Structural equations program manual, Encino, California: Multivariate Software Inc. Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.B. 1980, Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 88, pp Bollen, K. 1989, Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York, John Wiley & Sons. Brotheridge, C. M., and Grandey, A. A., 2002, 'Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of "people work"', Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 60, pp Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. 2003, Development and Validation of the Emotional Labour Scale, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 76, pp Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. 1998, On the Dimensionality of Emotional Labour: Development and validation of an emotional labour scale, First Conference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San Diego. Byrne, B.M. 1994, Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications. Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthen, B. 1989, Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issues of partial measurement invariance, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 105, pp Deadrick, D. L. and McAfee, R. B Service with a smile: Legal and emotional issues. Journal of Quality Management, vol. 6, pp Diefendorff, J. M. and Gosserand, R. H Understanding the emotional labor process: A control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 24, pp Erickson, R. J., and Ritter, C., 2001, 'Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter?' Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 64, pp Glomb, T. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. and Rotundo, M. 2004, Emotional labor demands and compensating wage differentials, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 4, pp Glomb, T. M. and Tews, M. J. 2004, Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 64, pp Grandey, A. A The effects of emotional labor: Employee attitudes, stress and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 17

18 Grandey, A. A., 2000, 'Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualise emotional labor', Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 5, pp Grandey, A. A., 2003, 'When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 46, pp Harris, L. C., 2002, 'The emotional labour of barristers: An exploration of emotional labour by status professionals', Journal of Management Studies, vol. 39, pp Hochschild, A. R., 1983, The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. 1978, The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd edn.). New York: Wiley. Korczynski, M Communities of coping: Collective emotional labour in service work. Organization, vol. 10, no. 1, pp Kruml, S. M., and Geddes, D., 2000, 'Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor', Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 14, pp Lewig, K. A. and Dollard, M. F Emotional dissonance, emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction in call centre workers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp Mann, S. 2004, People-work : Emotion management, stress and coping, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, vol. 32, no. 2, pp Morris, J. A., and Feldman, D. C., 1996, 'The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor.' Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, pp Pugliesi, K., 1999, 'The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job satisfaction and well-being.' Motivation and Emotion, vol. 23, pp Rafaeli, A., and Sutton, R. I., 1987, 'Expression of emotion as part of the work role', Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, pp Rafaeli, A. and Sutton, R. I Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal investigators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, pp Schaubroeck, J., and Jones, J. R., 2000, 'Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms.' Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, pp Sharma, U. and Black, P Look good, feel better: Beauty therapy as emotional labor. Sociology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp Shuler, S., and Sypher, B. D., 2000, 'Seeking emotional labor.' Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 14, pp Smith, P. 1992, The emotional labor of nursing, London: Macmillan. Sutton, R. I Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 36, pp

19 Van Maanen, J. and Kunda, G. 1989, Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 11, pp Wharton, A. S., 1999, 'The psychosocial consequences of emotional labor.' The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol Zapf, D., 2002, 'Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations', Human Resource Management Review, vol. 12, pp Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., and Isic, A., 1999, Emotion work as a source of stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 8, pp Zammuner, V. L., & Galli, C. 2005, The relationship with patients: Emotional labour and its correlates in hospital employees, in Hartel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. editors, Emotions in Organizational Behavior, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum. 19