social context effects in the display of emotion: accountability in a simulated organization

Social Context Effects in the Display of Emotion:Accountability in a Simulated Organization1

Sharmin Tunguz2

DePauw UniversityPeter J. Carnevale

Department of Management andOrganization

Marshall School of BusinessUniversity of Southern California

Emotional labor involves employees’ displays of appropriate emotions done tocomply with emotional display rules created to attain organizational goals. Thisstudy examined whether display rules operationalized as process accountability(being held accountable for the quality of emotional displays during social interac-tions) and as outcome accountability (being held responsible for producing desiredoutcomes in others) would affect participants’ emotional labor. In a simulated jobinterview, process accountability increased emotional labor; this occurred only inthe absence of outcome accountability. The findings imply that display rules thatencourage attention to sustaining quality interactions are likely to be more successfulin achieving organizational goals than are rules that focus directly on producingpredetermined outcomes.jasp_768 1371..1398

Emotions are an integral part of organizational life and are functional fororganizations (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Isen & Baron, 1991). Emotionsare so central—even “commercial” (Hochschild, 1983)—that many organi-zations require their employees to manage emotion in a way to lure custom-ers into buying products, to foster positive customer relations (Rafaeli &Sutton, 1987, 1990), or even to evoke fear (Sutton, 1991).

When organizations impose emotional displays rules that dictate “servicewith a smile,” regardless of how the employee might truly feel, the organiza-tion capitalizes on the often dramatic impact that social context can have onthe display of emotion (Hochschild, 1983; Pugh, 2001). There is a pragmaticelement to this: Positive interactions between customers and employees canfoster customer satisfaction, and this might enhance the likelihood that theorganization will succeed (e.g., make money; Morris & Feldman, 1996, 1997;Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001). Organizations often prefer a particular style ofemotional display, and even include training programs to accomplish this

1The authors thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their assistance withdifferent aspects of this paper.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sharmin Tunguz, 7 E.Larabee Street, Greencastle, IN 46135. E-mail: [email protected]

1371

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2011, 41, 6, pp. 1371–1398.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

(Fineman, 1993; Forgas & George, 2001; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983;Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). The present study investigates the propertiesof social context that can operate in organizations, and how that can affectthe display of emotions.

In the customer-service literature, the regulation of employee emotions tofulfill organizational goals is called emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Hochs-child, 1983; Morris & Feldman, 1996). Although scholars still debate itsdefinition (Glomb & Tews, 2004; Grandey, 2000), our focus is on emotionallabor as a form of affective delivery (Tsai, 2001) that emphasizes the displayof positive emotions and the suppression of negative emotions to produce adesired outcome, such as encounter satisfaction (Barger & Grandey, 2006).In the present study, we examine emotional labor in a simulated organizationin which participants were given the task of interviewing someone to con-vince the person to join their organization, yet the interviewed person (actu-ally a confederate) acted in an unpleasant manner. We used self-reports andobserver reports of facial displays to assess the impact of social context onemotional labor.

There is evidence that social context can impact facial displays of emotion(Fischer, Manstead, & Zaalberg, 2003). For example, the sociality of thecontext—watching a humorous video clip alone, with a friend, or with astranger—can affect the display of happiness (Fridlund, 1991; Jakobs, Man-stead, & Fischer, 1999). Zaalberg, Manstead, and Fischer (2004) reportedthat social context can affect smiling behavior, even when the emotionalstimulus is negative. These findings are consistent with the behavioral ecologyview that facial displays of emotion are functional, communicative, andstrategic acts that reflect motives in specific contexts, designed to managesocial interaction (Fridlund, 1994).

The findings are consistent as well with the notion that there is activeregulation of emotion, and with the distinction between antecedent-focused and response-focused emotion-regulation strategies (Gross, 2002).Antecedent-focused emotion-regulation strategies are cognitive-based strate-gies that people undertake prior to full activation of the emotion response tohelp attenuate the emotion; for example, “seeing a job interview as an oppor-tunity to learn more about the company, rather than as a pass–fail test”(Gross, 2002, p. 282). Response-focused emotion-regulation strategies areemotion-based strategies that people undertake once an emotion is underway; for example, “keeping one’s anxiety from showing as one leaves a childat kindergarten for the first time” (p. 282).

Although numerous researchers have studied determinants of employeeemotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Morris & Feldman,1996; Rupp & Spencer, 2006; Tsai, 2001) and have examined the role ofemotional display rules in particular (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002;

1372 TUNGUZ AND CARNEVALE

Diefendorff & Richard, 2003), little work has been done to clarify thenature of display rules that have been found to raise emotional labor. Wetest the general proposition that accountability of the social context, afeature of situations that is particularly relevant to organizations, canstimulate emotional-response modulation and thus impact the facial displayof emotions.

Accountability

Social situations often lead individuals to act in ways that they must laterexplain and justify to important others. In a decision-making context, forinstance, decision makers must be prepared to defend their choices to theirconstituents, and must be ready to accept a consequence for their actions,making them susceptible to act according to a predetermined standard.Researchers offer the term accountability to refer to the social pressure tojustify and defend a given course of action to an authority (Lerner & Tetlock,1999; Schlenker, 1986; Tetlock, 1985, 1992).

Tetlock (1985, 1992) contended that the impact of accountability onjudgment depends on whether one is answerable to an audience whose viewsare known or unknown. When such views are known, accountableindividuals—provided they are not locked into a prior attitude—tend to shifttheir views strategically to win approval (Tetlock, 1983b). But when theseviews are unknown, accountability promotes a more cognitive, effortfulevaluation of competing alternatives, thus rendering more accurate (Tet-lock & Kim, 1987) and complex (Tetlock, 1983a) decisions. In negotiation,accountability can lead representatives to have higher aspirations in theeffort to obtain satisfactory outcomes for constituents (Ben-Yoav & Pruitt,1984; Carnevale, 1985; Kramer, 1995), which can lead to a contentiousapproach to the negotiation. In some circumstances, accountability canproduce greater information processing, reduced bias, and better outcomes(Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; de Dreu & Carnevale, 2003).

Scholars have found it useful to differentiate between two forms ofaccountability: process (also known as procedure) accountability andoutcome accountability (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates,1996). Outcome accountability refers to the extent to which people are evalu-ated or accountable for the outcome or result of their decision making. Forinstance, a representative might be accountable to his or her supervisor forthe outcomes obtained from a negotiation. Process accountability, on theother hand, refers to the extent to which individuals are evaluated for theprocess by which they make decisions; that is, the extent to which theyevaluate alternative strategies during decision making.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND EMOTIONAL LABOR 1373

The evidence suggests an ironic effect: People who are outcome-accountable tend to make poorer decisions than do people who are account-able for the process (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996).When the focus is on outcome accountability, more detrimental judgmentsand decisions result, presumably because of a more rigid way of thinking, thestress of having to achieve a given result, and a prior commitment to a givenline of action (see Simonson & Staw, 1992). However, when process account-ability is the focus, improved judgments and decisions are achieved becauseof an increased emphasis on openness to alternative perspectives that help inattaining optimal outcomes.

Accountability and Emotional Labor

The construct of accountability has been studied extensively in the nego-tiation and decision-making literatures. Here, we introduce the accountabil-ity concept to the emotional-labor literature. We argue that accountabilitytaps similar cognitive and emotional mechanisms within the context of work-place emotion as it does in negotiations and decision making in that in allthese situations, accountable individuals must comply with certain norms orrisk reprimand from those in authority over them. In customer-service set-tings, for instance, employees are held accountable for their willingness todisplay a variety of appropriate emotions and to suppress negative emotionswhen interacting with clients (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Diefendorff &Richard, 2003; Morris & Feldman, 1996). That is, they are held accountablefor the process of emotional labor. Alternatively, accountable employees areoften expected to achieve a prescribed outcome of these displays and producea desired reaction, such as positive affect in a client (Barger & Grandey, 2006;Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001). That is, they are held accountable for the outcome ofemotional labor.3 In either case, any set of behaviors that fails to live up to aprescribed standard demands defense and justification to those who monitorsuch behaviors.

Past work has not examined the impact of accountability on emotionallabor, but there is indirect evidence suggesting that they are linked. Rafaeliand Sutton (1987, 1990) examined frontline workers in stores—cashiers andclerks who came face to face with customers—who were, therefore, in aposition that made them accountable for the protection of their organiza-tion’s public image. They found that a positive relationship existed betweencustomer demand, defined as the frequency of transactions between cashiersand customers, and the display of good cheer. In addition, Morris and

3We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight.


Feldman’s (1997) findings on the negative relationship between jobautonomy and emotional labor also indicate that employees with less joblatitude, which suggests higher accountability to a superior, were more likelyto exert emotional labor. Furthermore, a study by Grandey, Fisk, and Steiner(2005) found that workers high in autonomy experienced lower levels ofstress because they could regulate their emotions according to their own freewill, rather than to the dictates of their employing organization. It stands toreason that being accountable for how one presents oneself may have animpact on the level of emotional labor expended.

We believe that accountability is relevant, particularly to the concept ofdisplay rules. Ever since Hochschild’s (1983) introduction of the emotional-labor concept, the concept of display rules has played an important part inthe study of emotional labor. Display rules (initially called feeling rules byHochschild) are generally defined as organizational rules, norms, and stan-dards of behavior indicating which emotions are appropriate in a givensituation and how these emotions should be publicly expressed. As is the casewith most organizational rules, an implicit assumption in the concept ofdisplay rules is that these organizational rules will be monitored andenforced, and that some form of accountability is extant.

The existence of display rules and the accountability to follow them arelikely to be correlated in that display rules hold employees accountable tothem. Thus, it could be argued that the construct of accountability is to someextent a proxy variable for display rules; a variable that has already receiveda great amount of theoretical (e.g., Hochschild, 1983; Morris & Feldman,1996) and empirical attention (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Diefen-dorff & Richard, 2003; Grandey, 2003; Morris & Feldman, 1997). Forinstance, a study by Diefendorff and Richard found that employee percep-tions of display rules positively impacted coworker ratings of employee emo-tional displays. An implication of this finding is that appropriate emotionalexpressions result when one feels accountable to the mandates of displayrules.

As previously indicated, the customer-service literature has clearly estab-lished a link between display rules and emotional labor. However, it has notclarified whether display rules are for the purpose of achieving a specifiedoutcome (e.g., increases in sales, production of customer satisfaction) orensuring the quality of the process and the means used to arrive at thatoutcome (e.g., use of friendly and pleasant customer service). The presentstudy, therefore, seeks to answer this question.

There may be situations in which organizations have display rules that arenot being followed, potentially because of confusion over whether these ruleshave process or outcome accountability considerations. In other words, theeffects of accountability on emotional labor may hinge on whether display


rules emphasize outcome or process accountability elements. For instance, ifoutcome accountability is salient, employees might be held accountable foroutcomes, such as the number of products they sell to customers. But ifprocess accountability is the focus, employees might be accountable for thequality of the socioemotional interaction they have with a customer. In sucha situation, then, employees might feel social pressure to manage theiremotions in front of their clients, regardless of whether these interactionsaffect the bottom line.

The present study addresses this question by holding job dutiesconstant—the task participants were expected to perform in the laboratorysimulation used here did not vary from condition to condition—but the levelof accountability of the individual did vary. Another way to phrase theresearch question of the present study is “Will accountability—and differentforms of accountability—impact the operation of display rules of emotion?”

Hypotheses

We seek to investigate whether accountability at the outcome or processlevels affects emotional labor. We expect process accountability, in particu-lar, to have a facilitating effect on emotional labor, more than outcomeaccountability. But, as we will explain, we expect that the two forms ofaccountability will interact.

Process-facilitating effect. Several studies have reported that processaccountability improves the accuracy of decisions (Siegel-Jacobs & Yates,1996; also see Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1985, 1992). In a field studyexamining purchasing managers, Doney and Armstrong (1996) found thatprocess accountability increased the effort managers devoted to analyzingcompeting products, while outcome accountability had no such effect. Inanother study assessing the factors that lowered commitment to failingpolicies (also known as sunk cost effects), Simonson and Staw (1992) foundthat raising accountability for decision-making processes, rather than out-comes, reduced the pursuit of a losing line of action. Freed from the con-straints of justifying a previous investment mistake, process-accountableindividuals recognized that they would receive favorable ratings if theyused proper decision-making strategies, regardless of the outcomes theyengendered.

Given the facilitating effect that process accountability has on attainingoptimal decisions, and in encouraging greater managerial diligence, weexpect that process accountability will have a similar, positive impact onemotional labor. Specifically, we expect that display rules emphasizingprocess accountability will accentuate good cheer in an employee whose


task is to display friendliness, politeness, and a positive demeanor in aneffort to achieve an organizational objective; namely, to recruit a qualified,though unpleasant person to the organization. In a similar vein, we alsoexpect that process accountability will suppress the display of negativeemotions (e.g., irritation, anger) that might exert a detrimental effect on theinterviewee.

Previous research in customer-service settings has found that employeesremain cognizant of the importance of suppressing negative emotion, evenwhen interacting with difficult customers (Diefendorff, Richard, & Yang,2008; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Hochschild, 1983; Rupp & Spencer,2006) or when confronted by stressful workplace events (Diefendorff et al.,2008). A study by Diefendorff et al. showed that workers utilized response-focused emotional-regulation strategies involving the hiding of negative feel-ings and the pretense of being in a good mood when dealing with negativeaffective events. Furthermore, prior work on the beneficial effects of positivedisplays on customer satisfaction and intentions to return to the store(Barger & Grandey, 2006; Mattila & Enz, 2002; Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001;Tsai & Huang, 2002) make it logical to assume that the present study’s focuson being accountable for the maintenance of a pleasant exchange during aninterview would both encourage the display of positive emotions and thesuppression of any negative emotions that might come about during theinteraction. This process-facilitating effect of process accountability formsthe basis of the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a. Process accountability will have a main effect onthe display of positive emotions. If held accountable for theprocess with which an interview is conducted, individuals willexpress more positive emotions than if not held accountable forthe interview process.

Hypothesis 1b. Process accountability will have a main effect onthe suppression of genuinely felt negative emotions. If heldaccountable for the process with which the interview is con-ducted, individuals will suppress more negative emotions than ifnot held accountable for the interview process.

Outcome-rigidity effect. The accountability literature suggests that underconditions of outcome accountability, individuals generally tend to makepoorer judgments (Brtek & Motowidlo, 2002; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996), presumably because of a decreased scrutiny of alter-native positions in favor of a heightened focus on a prescribed outcome.Though their motivation to attain optimal outcomes might be high,outcome-accountable individuals risk stumbling in the dark when denied the


guidance needed to accomplish the high-quality goals set forth for them bytheir constituents.

In the negotiation literature, there is evidence that outcome accountabilityfosters higher aspirations and contentious behavior, which can, in somecases, produce a rigid approach to negotiation and poor subsequent out-comes (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; O’Connor, 1997). In a decision context,Simonson and Staw (1992) found that outcome accountability resulted inpoorer judgments and reduced accuracy than did process accountability.This was attributed to a narrower attention capacity associated with outcomeaccountability, but not process accountability. This is consistent with Janisand Mann’s (1977) conflict theory: High uncertainty about decision successcoupled with high decision consequence produces stress. Stress can producerigidity and poor performance. Consistent with this, Siegel-Jacobs and Yates(1996) found that outcome accountability produced greater stress and greaterjudgmental inconsistency than did process accountability.

Finally, a study examining the relative merits of process and outcomeaccountability (Brtek & Motowidlo, 2002) found that process accountability,but not outcome accountability, heightened interview validity, operational-ized as the correlation between participants’ ratings of managers’ interviewperformance and supervisors’ ratings of leadership performance. This effectwas fully mediated by attentiveness. In other words, being answerable for theprocess used to make ratings encouraged greater attention to relevant infor-mation, while being answerable for the quality of the ratings themselves (i.e.,the outcome) stifled information search and lowered interview validity.Taken together, the aforementioned studies imply that when people focus toomuch on factors beyond their control (e.g., external outcomes), their perfor-mance might suffer relative to situations in which they attend to factorswithin their control, such as processing and engaging different alternatives ormobilizing inner resources.

Given the debilitating effect that outcome accountability can have onnegotiation and decision making, we expect it to have a similarly flaggingeffect on emotional labor. The implication is that outcome accountability, anelement that narrows a person’s attention capacity and prevents one fromattending to other characteristics of the situation (Simonson & Staw, 1992),can attenuate the positive impact of process accountability. Said differently,we argue that because outcome accountability focuses on a result that issalient (i.e., outcomes), its presence has the effect of canceling out the effectof procedures (i.e., processes) that are not so salient. Thus, we expect that thetwo forms of accountability will interact such that the effect of processaccountability on emotional labor will be weaker in the presence (vs. theabsence) of outcome accountability. There is no direct evidence of this inthe negotiation and decision literatures, but it is consistent with Staw,


Sandelands, and Dutton’s (1981) notion of a threat rigidity effect. It assumesthat outcome accountability, with its less sense of control over the outcome,is more threatening than is process accountability, which is more under theindividual’s control.

Indeed, when considering how process and outcome accountability mightinteract with each other, it is also useful to draw from the customer-serviceliterature that confirms the difficulty involved in juggling multiple endeavors,especially when dealing with hostile customers. When service providers areasked to comply with multiple demands (e.g., to provide both fast andfriendly service, even to hostile customers), focusing on one often detractsfrom the other, leading to burnout and withdrawal (Brotheridge & Grandey,2002; Grandey et al., 2004; Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, and Sideman,2005). Given this evidence, we contend that the requirements to adhere toboth outcome-accountability and process-accountability expectations (e.g.,recruit a job candidate and maintain a pleasant interview exchange) will alsocomplicate participants’ attempts at appropriate emotional management,making it less likely that they will be successful in displaying positive emo-tions and suppressing negative emotions when conducting an interview withan unpleasant person.

Hypothesis 2a. Outcome accountability will moderate the effectof process accountability on the display of positive emotionssuch that the effect of process accountability will weaken in thepresence (vs. the absence) of outcome accountability.

Hypothesis 2b. Outcome accountability will moderate the effectof process accountability on the suppression of negative emo-tions such that the effect of process accountability will weakenin the presence (vs. the absence) of outcome accountability.

Method

Participants and Design

Study participants were 85 students (44 men, 41 women) who were drawnfrom the Introductory Psychology subject pool at a large midwestern univer-sity. They participated in the experiment in exchange for partial course credit.All participants were between the ages of 18 and 22 years. With regard toethnicity, 88% were White, 4% were African American, 4% were Hispanic,and 2% were Asian American. The study employed a 2 (Outcome Account-ability: present vs. absent) ¥ 2 (Process Accountability: present vs. absent)factorial design. There were roughly 20 participants per cell.


Procedure

The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimentalconditions (outcome, process, combined outcome and process, and a noaccountability control group). For the purpose of efficiency, 2 participantswere run independently in each session of the experiment. Table 1 lists thesequential steps in the experiment.

Upon their arrival at the laboratory, each participant was presentedwith a folder of instructions that included an informed consent form and acover story with a brief synopsis of the experiment. The cover story toldparticipants that they were employees of a student organization called “UIComputing Assist,” which was in the process of recruiting a new worker.They were told that their job was to recruit a person who had already beenoffered the job, and that they would do this in an upcoming interview by“selling” their organization to the recruit. The story emphasized thatbecause the organization really wanted the interviewee to accept their joboffer, it was incumbent on the participant to speak enthusiastically of theorganization so as to create a favorable impression of it. However, toensure that participants conducted themselves according to the displayrules of their unique accountability conditions, the cover story did notprovide explicit guidelines on how participants ought to present themselvesemotionally during the interview itself. The cover story added that theinterviewee (recruit) was another participant in the study (actually arecorded confederate), who was given instructions to play the role of theperson who had been offered the job, and who was currently in anotherroom.

Participants were told that the interview would take place using a “videoconferencing system.” The participant would view the interviewee over atelevision monitor, and the experiment was an attempt to investigate how thissort of technological medium affected the interview process. They were alsotold that while they would not be able to view the interviewee while they (theparticipants) spoke, they would be able to see the interviewee over the TVmonitor when she responded. This unusual situation was explained as atechnological form that pertained to the purported purpose of the study: toinvestigate technology of the interview process.

In fact, the reason for the TV–video hookup was to provide experimentalcontrol. Our concern was to ensure that every participant received the samestimulus. Thus we video-recorded the interviewee, rather than have her poselive. The confederate interviewee, on the tape, was trained to exhibit negativeemotions, such as irritation and annoyance, use a sharp tone of voice, and beskeptical of any claims made by the interviewer. Her response lasted for 2 minand was moderate in its intensity.


Table 1

Sequence of Steps Used in the Experiment

Step Description

2 participants arrived Participants directed to separate rooms.Participants given

folder of materialsParticipants read that they were employees of a

simulated organization, UI Computing Assist.They were told to interview and recruitanother subject who had been offered a job withthem. They were also informed that the interviewwould take place over a TV monitor and that itwould be videotaped.

1st participant directedto interview room.2nd participantwaited in a separate room.

The first participant sat at a table in front of a TVmonitor in the interview room. The table wasequipped with a timer and script for theparticipant to follow during the interview.Meanwhile, the second participant waitedalone in a separate room until called.

Experimenter’s role The experimenter orally reviewed the instructionsagain, and then pressed the Record button on thecamera.

Interview After starting the timer, the participant spoke for2 minutes until the timer went off. Then, in acontrol room, an experimental aide pressed theStart button on a VCR so that the interviewee’s(confederate’s) taped image appeared on the TVin the interview room. The participant viewed theinterviewee until she stopped speaking, at whichpoint the aide pressed the Stop button. Theparticipant responded to what was said foranother 2 minutes. The recording was stoppedwhen the timer went off. The first participantwent back to the other room. The experimentalaide rewound the confederate’s tape.

2nd participant The second participant was called to the interviewroom after the first one left, and followed thesame sequence of steps in the interview room aswas used by the first participant.

Post-interview Back in the other room, participants filled out aquestionnaire that asked about the interview andwere dismissed after debriefing.


Interview. In each experimental session, one of the participants wasdirected to a small “interview room” in which there was a table and chair,a TV monitor, and a video camera. They were given a script to follow forconducting the interview. There was also a stopwatch set at 2 min that wasused to time the participant each time he or she spoke. The participant thenpressed the Start button on the stopwatch while the experimenter pressedthe Record button on the video camera. These cues started the interviewprocess. The first phase of the interview ended when the stopwatch beepedafter 2 min.

At this point, an experimenter outside the room pressed the Start buttonon a videocassette recorder so the tape of the confederate posing as theinterviewee was played to the participant. This enabled the participant inthe interview room to view the recorded confederate, who the participantsbelieved was live and responding to their opening pitch. After the confed-erate had finished speaking, the experimenter stopped the tape, and theparticipant spoke in response to what he or she had just heard. A videocamera recorded all three phases of the interview for future coding ofverbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic signs of emotional labor. Upon theconclusion of the interview, the participant was led back to the little roomand was asked to complete a questionnaire.

The procedure was repeated for the second participant in the experimen-tal session. The two never met or interacted; thus, their data are independent.After the questionnaire was completed, the participant was debriefed,thanked for participating in the experiment, and dismissed.

Manipulation of accountability. In line with past research (Carnevale,Pruitt, & Seilheimer, 1981), accountability consisted of two elements:authority control over rewards and authority evaluation of employees’behavior. Accountability was manipulated in the instructions to partici-pants. In the outcome-accountability condition, participants were informedthat

There is a chance that you can earn real money for participatingin this study. The person whom you interview in the recruitinginterview will decide to either join or not join the organization.If they say “Yes,” that they will join the organization, then yoursupervisor will award you a ticket that will be entered in alottery. One in every 10 tickets will be randomly drawn fromthis lottery and will be converted into a cash prize of $20 foreach winner.

Participants in this condition were informed that their videotapes would beviewed for research purposes only.


In the process-accountability condition, participants were informed that

There is a chance that you can earn real money for participatingin this study. After you have completed the interview, the vid-eotape of the interview will be submitted for review by a seniorgraduate student in human resources who works in our lab, andwho is an expert on interview processes. This expert will writean evaluation of your intentions and behaviors during the inter-view. This expert will also decide, based on the interview tape, ifyou did a good enough job to earn a prize. If they judge thatyour interview performance does deserve a reward, then youwill receive a ticket that will be entered in a lottery. One in every10 tickets will be randomly drawn from this lottery, and will beconverted into a cash prize of $20 for each winner.

Participants in this condition were also informed that the person evaluatingtheir tapes would not know the outcome of the interview. That is, the “seniorgraduate student” would not know whether the interviewee decided to acceptor reject her job offer.

In the condition that combined both outcome accountability and processaccountability, participants were given instructions that combined relevantelements of the outcome- and process-accountability instructions. Thus,these participants were induced to experience both outcome and processaccountability. They were informed that their chance at earning the rewardwas contingent both on whether the interviewee decided to join the organi-zation (i.e., outcome accountability), and whether an expert in the interviewprocess who would later view the videotape determined whether the conductof the interview was sufficiently emotionally engaged and professional (i.e.,process accountability).

In the no-accountability condition, an effort was made to ensure thatparticipants did not feel answerable to a superior. Participants were told that

You are temporary, and you have a more permanent job linedup in another organization. This organization, in which you aretemporary, is in the process of hiring a new worker, and theperson who is in charge of the interview process is sick, and youare substituting for them for the day.

They were also told that

There is a chance that you can earn real money for participatingin this study. You will receive a ticket that will be entered in alottery. One in every 10 tickets will be randomly drawn from


this lottery, and will be converted into a cash prize of $20 foreach winner. Our lab assistant may eventually view the tape ofyour interview for purposes of data coding regarding commu-nication technology, but it will not be evaluated in any way.

In these ways, participants’ social context was manipulated such thatthey were required to abide by display rules that were enforced by authorityfigures (a “supervisor,” a “senior graduate student,” both, or neither),depending on the accountability manipulation in which they were placed.Although participants never saw these individuals, they were made awarethat they were accountable to these persons. Their choices of actions andemotional expressions exhibited during their interviews with the recruited jobcandidates would be subject to evaluation by these authority figures andoutcome- or process-related rewards would result if their behaviors met theprescribed norm of their conditions.

Measures

Measures of the independent variables. The manipulation check forprocess accountability was assessed with four interrelated items that wereaveraged (Cronbach’s a = .67). These items were modified from a measuretaken from Carnevale et al. (1981) and included the following items: “I felt Ihad to justify my behavior during the interview,” “I was concerned aboutrecruiting the interviewee,” “I was concerned about the quality of the inter-action between myself and the interviewee,” and “I felt pressured to maintaina pleasant conversation.” For outcome accountability, the manipulationcheck was measured by four interrelated items that were also averaged(a = .71). The items included “I felt responsible for the outcome of theinterview,” “I felt pressured to ensure that the interviewee was hired,” “I feltI would have to justify my behavior if the interviewee decided not to join,”and “I felt responsible about whether the interviewee was hired or not.” Theitems were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely didnot feel this way) to 7 (definitely felt this way).

Self-report measures of emotional labor. Self-reported emotional laborwas measured through responses to nine interrelated items. This scale mea-sured the extent to which participants felt that they engaged in emotionallabor during the course of their interviews; particularly, the level of difficultyassociated with managing their emotions. Sample items measuring thedisplay of positive emotions included “I tried to display enthusiasm,” and “Itried to act cheerful and happy” (a = .83). Suppression of negative emotionswas measured by responses to four items, including “I tried to suppress how


upset or distressed I felt,” and “I tried to suppress the anger and disliking thatI felt”(a = .87). The items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (veryeasy) to 7 (very difficult). For both subscales, higher mean scores indicatehigher levels of difficulty in displaying positive emotion, and in suppressingnegative emotion.

Self-report measures of genuine feelings toward the interviewee. Partici-pants also indicated their genuine feelings about the interviewee with fiveinterrelated items that were averaged. Sample items included “Indicate youroverall impression of the person interviewed,” and “Indicate how likable youfelt the person interviewed was” (a = .72). The items were rated on a 7-pointscale ranging from 1 (very unfavorable/not at all likable) to 7 (very favorable/very likable). These items sought to understand how participants truly feltabout the person they interviewed.

Measure of suspicion. Participants were also provided with a single-itemquestion that asked them to indicate the extent to which they were convincedthey were speaking to a live interviewee during their interview. The item wasrated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very unconvinced) to 7 (very con-vinced). Of the 85 participants, 11 reported that they had some suspicion ofthe claim that the applicant whom they interviewed was live. ANOVA testson all measures compared those participants who reported some suspicionwith those who did not report any suspicion. There were no reliable differ-ences, which led us to retain all participants in the design for analyses.

Observer measures of emotional labor. Recall that each interview wasvideotaped for subsequent viewing and evaluation. Two independent raterswatched the videotapes of the participants, and used a scale to indicate theirperceptions of the extent to which they felt the participants had engaged inemotional labor during their interviews. This scale was divided into twosubscales that measured the expression of positive emotions, and the sup-pression of negative emotions. That is, this 7-point scale measured the extentto which the raters felt that the participants displayed positive emotions orsuppressed negative emotions during their interview.

There are nine interrelated items that comprised the subscale measuringthe expression of positive emotions. Sample items included “How much didthe participant smile?” and “How much enthusiasm did the participantdisplay?” (a = .78). There were five interrelated items that comprised thesubscale measuring the suppression of negative emotions. Sample itemsincluded “Did the participant suppress their anger?” and “Did the partici-pant suppress a sharp tone of voice?” (a = .97). The items were rated on a7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot).

Prior to watching the videotapes, both raters were trained to code formanifestations of emotional labor. They learned how to recognize specifictypes of facial expressions through observing images of individuals with


various facial expressions (e.g., smiles, eye contact) and observing theprimary researcher model positive and negative expressions when interactingwith a research assistant. In their first training, they practiced scoring theemotional labor scales together for a few sample participants. Any disagree-ments that arose during the trial rounds were discussed until both raters werein agreement. They then rated a total of 10 more participants independently.To determine interrater reliability, Pearson product-moment reliability coef-ficients were calculated between the scores assigned to each item by the firstand second raters. Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from .78 to .90across all of the items.

Results

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for all studyvariables. The relative size of the means is consistent with our hypotheses.

Table 2

Means, Intercorrelations, and Coefficient Alphas of Study Measures

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Self-report

1. Display positiveemotion

3.94 1.00 .83

2. Suppress negativeemotion

3.40 1.33 .36** .87

3. Genuine feelings 2.67 0.84 -.04 -.16 .72

4. Level of suspicion 3.71 2.11 -.07 -.16 .31** —

5. Processaccountability

4.91 1.21 -.19 .07 .16 .23* .67

6. Outcomeaccountability

5.03 1.04 -.18 -.05 .20 .24* .68** .71

Observed

7. Display positiveemotion

4.45 0.99 -.09 -.12 .07 -.06 .05 .03 .78

8. Suppress negativeemotion

5.78 1.45 -.05 -.14 .07 -.02 .03 .11 .54** .97

Note. N = 85. Coefficient alphas are presented in boldface along the diagonal.*p < .05. **p < .01.


Manipulation Checks

We conducted two 2 (Process Accountability: present vs. absent) ¥ 2(Outcome Accountability: present vs. absent) ANOVAs on the self-reportmeasures of process and outcome accountability. There was a main effect forprocess accountability, F(1, 84) = 8.77, p < .01 (process, M = 5.30, SD = 0.18;no process, M = 4.61, SD = 0.17), indicating that process-accountable indi-viduals felt more accountable for the process of their interviews than didindividuals who were not accountable at all. There was no statistically sig-nificant main effect of outcome accountability on the index measure ofoutcome accountability, although the means were in the expected direction(outcome, M = 4.92, SD = 0.12; no outcome, M = 4.53, SD = 0.13) and, asseen in subsequent analyses of the data, the outcome-independent variabledid have effects, as expected, on other measures (suggesting that there wereflaws in the manipulation check).4

Observer Analysis

Based on the videotapes made of the participants, independent observersmade ratings on the display of positive emotions and the suppression ofnegative emotions. We conducted a 2 (Process Accountability: present vs.absent) ¥ 2 (Outcome Accountability: present vs. absent) ANOVA examiningobserved differences in the display of positive emotions across the account-ability conditions. In support of Hypothesis 1a, there was a main effectfor process accountability. As Figure 1 illustrates, process-accountabilityparticipants displayed significantly more positive emotion than didno-accountability participants, F(1, 84) = 5.79, p < .05, h2 = .06 (process,M = 4.70 SD = 0.14; no process, M = 4.20 SD = 0.14). Hypothesis 1b was notsupported: There was no main effect for process accountability on the sup-pression of negative emotion. There was also no main effect of outcomeaccountability.

In support of Hypothesis 2a, the Process Accountability ¥ OutcomeAccountability interaction was significant, F(1, 84) = 14.27, p < .01, h2 = .15(Process ¥ Outcome, M = 4.28, SD = 0.20; process, M = 5.09, SD = 0.19).Individuals on whom process and outcome accountability were bothemphasized displayed fewer outward positive emotions than did process-accountability individuals (see Figure 1). In support of Hypothesis 2b,

4In retrospect, we suspect that our outcome-accountability measure should have beenwritten with those in authority doing the evaluation as the focus of each question (e.g., “Howmuch will you be formally evaluated by your supervisor for the outcome you have attained?”).Instead, our questions simply asked if participants felt responsible for the outcome of theinterview, and so forth.


Figure 2 shows that process-accountability individuals suppressed morenegative emotions than did participants in the group that emphasized bothprocess and outcome accountability, F(1, 84) = 4.47, p < .05, h2 = .05(process, M = 6.47, SD = 0.30; Process ¥ Outcome, M = 5.50, SD = 0.31).Outcome accountability attenuated the impact of process accountability onemotional labor. No other main effects or interactions were significant.Tables 3 and 4 present the complete results of the ANOVAs that we con-ducted on the observer data.

Figure 1. Display of positive emotions as a function of process accountability and outcomeaccountability.


Self-Report Data

Results based on self-reports of emotional labor were not signifi-cantly different across the various accountability conditions. This is not a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No process accountability Process accountability

Sup

pres

sion

of

nega

tive

em

otio

ns

No outcomeaccountability

Outcomeaccountability

Figure 2. Suppression of negative emotions as a function of process accountability and outcomeaccountability.

Table 3

Independent-Measures ANOVA for Display of Positive Emotion: ObserverReports

Source F(1, 84) Partial h2

Process accountability (PA) 5.79* .06Outcome accountability (OA) 0.15 .002PA ¥ OA 14.27** .14

*p < .05. **p < .01.


surprising finding, given that all participants were exposed to the samenegative stimulus. In fact, the overall level of responding on these self-report measures was telling: They suggest that the participants felt that theinterview was, indeed, emotionally laborious. On the measure of genuinefeelings about the unpleasant interviewee, the means were low across thefour accountability conditions and were not significantly different fromeach other (process, M = 2.66, SD = 0.81; outcome, M = 2.48, SD = 0.97;Process ¥ Outcome, M = 2.73, SD = 0.87; control, M = 2.78, SD = 0.73).These means indicate that at all levels of accountability, the participantsfound the interviewee to be unlikable and unpleasant.

Discussion

The use of organizational display rules to monitor and enforce commer-cialized forms of emotional expressions is well established in the emotional-labor literature (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Diefendorff & Richard, 2003;Grandey, 2000; Grandey et al., 2005; Hochschild, 1983; Pugh, 2001;Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1990; Tsai & Huang, 2002). The purpose of thisresearch was to examine whether the operationalization of social context asdisplay rules pertaining to process accountability and outcome accountabil-ity could affect emotional labor.

Process-accountability participants were answerable to an authorityfigure for the means with which they conducted a job recruiting interview,whereas outcome-accountability participants were answerable to a supervi-sor for whether or not the applicant accepted the job offer. We expectedthat process accountability would principally drive emotional labor; andwe expected that outcome accountability would moderate, and lessen,the impact of process accountability. The data support both expectations:

Table 4

Independent-Measures ANOVA for Suppression of Negative Emotion:Observer Reports

Source F(1, 84) Partial h2

Process accountability (PA) 1.94 .02Outcome accountability (OA) 1.16 .01PA ¥ OA 4.47* .05

*p < .05.


Comparisons between the accountability conditions on the measure of posi-tive emotional expression provided evidence consistent with our hypoth-eses. In keeping with the process-facilitating effect, individuals accountableat the process level expended effort to “put up a good show” more so thanwhen they were not made accountable at all. Furthermore, in support ofthe outcome rigidity effect, individuals on whom both process- andoutcome-accountability constraints were imposed were seen as displayingfewer positive emotions and more negative emotions than those who wereaccountable at the process level alone.

Contributions to Theory and Directions for Future Research

Our findings suggest that a social context composed of display rules thatfocus solely on emotional processes and displays might stand a betterchance of accruing bottom-line benefits for organizations than display rulesthat impose multiple accountability constraints on their employees. Indeed,our results reveal that workers accountable for both friendly interac-tions and pressures to maintain good business are likely to fail in the veryendeavors they set out to achieve, especially when interacting withunpleasant outsiders.

A possible explanation for this latter finding comes from the stressthat multiple accountability expectations induce in workers. The abun-dance of rules might cause workers to focus on a more salient endproduct, rather than on the nonsalient, though necessary processesused to achieve that end. This is consistent with the accountabilityliterature that provides ample evidence that outcome accountabilityimposes a stressful expectation on employees; one that creates a type oftunnel vision on a prescribed outcome that blocks out the examination ofalternative ways of achieving that outcome (Brtek & Motowidlo, 2002;Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates,1996; Simonson & Staw, 1992). Future research should examine whetherstress mediates between multiple accountability demands and emotionaldisplays.

Our findings also extend work in the emotional-labor literature by clari-fying the nature of the display rules needed to further organizationalgoals. Display rules are believed to facilitate job performance (Ashforth &Humphrey, 1993), and have empirically been found to positively affectemployees’ attempts at emotion management (Brotheridge & Grandey,2002; Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). The present study contributes to thisliterature by teasing apart the construct of display rules into those thataccentuate process or outcome elements, and indicating which types of


rules would be more beneficial for organizations. In particular, the ideathat display rules that emphasize emotional processes (e.g., service with asmile) are more likely to garner greater client satisfaction and repeat busi-ness (Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001; Tsai & Huang, 2002) than are rules with bothprocess and outcome expectations has practical implications as well. Itwould be interesting for future research to test the hypothesis that displayrules with process expectations are more successful in attaining bottom-line outcomes than are rules that impose both process- and outcome-accountability constraints.

One of the strengths of this study was the use of multiple measures ofevaluation (i.e., observer ratings, self-reports). These provided two distinctways of assessing emotional labor. From a practical standpoint, observerreports of emotional labor might be considered the more important of thetwo, inasmuch as employers seek to cultivate outwardly appropriate emo-tional expression in their employees. Visible manifestations of emotion workare, after all, what customers, interviewers, and other observers see and fileaway for future reference.

An important question to ask about this study—and any studythat purports to generalize to natural settings, especially one driven by adesire for experimental control—is what is the extent to which the opera-tionalizations reflect processes that occur in natural settings. We suspect,for example, that our operationalization of outcome accountability—thedegree to which employees were judged for the result of their efforts—issomething that occurs often in natural settings. However, the negativeaspect of this evaluation existed in this study in a fairly modest way: aprobabilistic dynamic concerning a modest monetary reward. In manynatural settings, the negative aspect of evaluation is likely to be muchstronger (e.g., loss of employment), but this likely varies from organizationto organization, and even within organizations. It may be that the effectsobtained in this study would be even larger if the negative aspects of evalu-ation were stronger. In other words, the effects obtained here may gener-alize most clearly to situations in which there are modest negative aspectsof evaluation.

In addition, it may be that outcome and process accountability are noteasily distinguished in natural settings. Indeed, on the surface, our process-accountability manipulation seemed similar to the outcome-accountabilitymanipulation; but note that they had distinct effects. The data reportedhere indicate that it may be useful to explore natural settings to get a senseof the relative importance of process and outcome accountability and thedegree to which they occur, separately and in combination. No doubt, itwould be valuable to have empirical evidence from real employees in realorganizations on these issues.


Limitations

There are, of course, alternative perspectives to consider in interpretingthe effects reported here. For example, it could be argued that participantsaccountable at the process level became more invested and involved in thetask and that this alone made them feel more positive about the interview. So,when it came time to interact with the confederate, they were able to do somore positively and cheerfully than were the less accountable participants.However, comparisons between the four accountability groups on themeasure of self-reported genuine feelings indicated that there were no signifi-cant differences between the four conditions. In general, regardless of thecondition they were in, participants felt negatively about the person theyinterviewed.

The self-reports stand in sharp contrast to the observer ratings. Inde-pendent raters who watched the videotapes of the participants doingthe interview saw the process-accountable participants as more positivethan the unaccountable participants on the measures of the display ofpositive emotions. The self-report data, compared to the data on observerjudgments of the participants’ facial expressions, is evidence that emotionallabor was engaged. Internally, the participants had a negative view ofthe unpleasant person they were interviewing, but outwardly they showedsigns of being positive; but this outward sign depended on the level andtype of accountability. The contrast between the self- and observer reportswould also explain why the observed correlation between the two measuresof emotional labor was not significant: Participants across all four condi-tions inwardly disliked the interviewee, but those in one condition (i.e.,process accountability) were able to hide their true negative feelings andexhibit positive expressions on the outside more so than those in the otherconditions.

A second limitation of the effects reported here pertains to the observermeasure of negative emotional suppression. It could be argued thatobserver reports of negative emotional suppression are not easily inter-preted as evidence of emotional labor because observations of the absenceof negativity could mean either that (a) participants fully suppressed theirnegative emotions (and so engaged in high emotional labor); or (b) they feltnothing and so did nothing (which would imply no emotional labor). Toresolve this ambiguity, we once again compared the self-report data withthe observer data. The self-report measures consistently indicated, acrossall accountability conditions, that the participants disliked the interviewee(using the genuine feelings measure) and found it difficult to regulate theirfeelings when interacting with her (using the emotional labor measure).Thus, when looking at the observer reports, we interpreted the absence of


negative emotions among process-accountable participants to mean morenegative emotional suppression and, therefore, more emotional labor.5

Our data could also be interpreted in light of emotional intelligence (EI;Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Wong & Law, 2002) in that the ability to recognize,display, and hide certain emotions might have come more easily to some thanto others. Specifically, it could be that it was EI, and not process account-ability, that led participants in that condition to regulate their emotions moreeffectively. That said, our use of random assignment ensured that suchindividuals were evenly spread out across conditions, and not necessarilyconcentrated in one condition alone. Nonetheless, future research shouldconsider the impact of EI and other individual-difference variables (e.g.,gender) in future studies in that they might serve as moderating variables thatstrengthen the link between process accountability and emotional expressionand suppression.6

Finally, given that we used college students with minimal working expe-rience as our study participants, it could be argued further that they did notserve as a representative sample from which to draw generalizable conclu-sions. That said, we trained our participants to pose as actual employeesworking for a real organization, and then had them engage in a simulationsimilar to the type they would encounter in the real world. We also opera-tionalized accountability in ways that map onto the phenomenon in actualwork settings (evaluation and rewards provided by an authority figure), andparticipants in our study were promised compensation that is also present ina real work context. Furthermore, the self-report data on genuine feelingsindicate that the participants did have a negative reaction to the interviewee,and it is this negative sentiment that employees experience in a natural settingwhen interacting with unpleasant others. The self-report data afford usgreater confidence in the conclusions drawn from our findings, as theysuggest that our simulation was effective in inducing a psychologically real-istic experience for our participants.

The present study distinguished two forms of accountability—processand outcome—and found that the latter can interfere with the former. Thissuggests an interesting dilemma for organizations that want to encourageemployees to engage in emotional labor: that the use of outcome account-ability may, in fact, undermine that objective. This, of course, suggests thatfield studies in natural settings should be conducted to assess the prevalenceof one or other form of accountability and their impact. It also suggests thatresearchers might focus on discovery of other structural features of organi-zations (e.g., accountability) that can affect emotional labor.

5We thank two anonymous reviewers for this alternative means of interpreting the data.6We thank two anonymous reviewers for this alternative means of interpreting the data.


The results of this study also indicate that different forms of accountabil-ity have different impacts on the facial display of emotion, and the display ofemotion may not reflect underlying feelings, as assessed by self-reports. Itsuggests that, sometimes, what the face says and what the person feels are notalways the same. A next step is the development of a more general theory ofsocial context effects in the facial display of emotion, and a theory of themechanisms of the association and disassociation of emotion display andemotion feeling.

References

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 the workplace: Areappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97–125.

Barger, P. B., & Grandey, A. A. (2006). Service with a smile and encountersatisfaction: Emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49, 1229–1238.

Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D. G. (1984). Accountability to constituents: Atwo-edged sword. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34,283–295.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout:Comparing two perspectives on “people work.” Journal of VocationalBehavior, 60, 17–39.

Brtek, M. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Effects of procedure and outcomeaccountability on interview validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,185–191.

Carnevale, P. J. (1985). Accountability of group representatives and inter-group relations. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theoryand research (Vol. 2, pp. 227–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. AnnualReview of Psychology, 43, 531–582.

Carnevale, P. J., Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and com-peting: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120.

de Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of infor-mation processing and strategy in negotiation and social conflict. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp.235–291). New York: Academic Press.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequencesof emotional display rules perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,284–294.


Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Yang, J. (2008). Linking emotionregulation strategies to affective events and negative emotions at work.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 498–508.

Doney, P. M., & Armstrong, G. M. (1996). Effects of accounta-bility on symbolic information search and information analysis byorganizational buyers. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 24,57–65.

Fineman, S. (Ed.). (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage.Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Zaalberg, R. (2003). Social influences

on the emotion process. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Europeanreview of social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 171–201). Hove, UK: PsychologyPress.

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments andbehavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34.

Fridlund, A. J. (1991). Sociality of solitary smiling: Potentiation by animplicit audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 229–240.

Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualizationand scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 1–23.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way toconceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 5, 95–110.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When the “show must go on”: Surface acting anddeep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-ratedservice delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96.

Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. (2004). The customer is not alwaysright: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–22.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A., Jansen, A., & Sideman, L. (2005).Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays inservice encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 96, 38–55.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. (2005). Must “service with a smilebe stressful?” The moderating role of personal control for U.S. andFrench employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 893–904.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social con-sequences. Psychophysiology, 9, 281–291.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of humanfeeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.


Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor inorganizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 1–53). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Jakobs, E., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (1999). Social motives andsubjective feelings as determinants of facial displays: The case of smiling.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 424–435.

Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysisof conflict, choice, and commitment. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Kramer, R. M. (1995). In dubious battle: Heightened accountability, dys-phoric cognition, and self-defeating bargaining behavior. In R. Kramer &D. Messick (Eds.), Negotiation as a social process (pp. 95–120). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of account-ability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.

Mattila, A. S., & Enz, C. A. (2002). The role of emotions in service encoun-ters. Journal of Service Research, 4, 268–277.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotionalintelligence (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, andconsequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21,986–1010.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the work-place. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 257–274.

O’Connor, K. M. (1997). Groups and solos in context: The effects ofaccountability on team negotiation. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 72, 384–407.

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the serviceencounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1018–1027.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the workrole. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23–37.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1990). Busy stores and demanding customers:How do they affect the display of positive emotion? Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 33, 623–637.

Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effect ofcustomer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediatingrole of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 971–978.

Schlenker, B. R. (1986). Personal accountability: Challenges and impedimentsin the quest for excellence. San Diego, CA: Naval Personnel Research andDevelopment Center.


Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcomeaccountability judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 65, 1–17.

Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison oftechniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journalof Applied Psychology, 77, 419–426.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effectsin organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 26, 501–524.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emotion andfavorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71.

Sutton, R. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case ofbill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245–268.

Tetlock, P. E. (1983a). Accountability and the complexity of thought. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.

Tetlock, P. E. (1983b). Accountability and the perseverance of first impres-sions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 285–292.

Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judg-ment and choice. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organi-zational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297–332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice:Toward a social contingency model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331–376). New York:Academic Press.

Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. (1987). Accountability and overconfidence in apersonality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 700–709.

Tsai, W. C. (2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displays ofpositive emotions. Journal of Management, 27, 497–512.

Tsai, W. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee affectivedelivery and customer behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 87, 1001–1008.

Wong, C-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emo-tional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study.Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274.

Zaalberg, R., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2004). Relations betweenemotions, display rules, social motives, and facial behavior. Cognition andEmotion, 18, 183–207.


social context effects in the display of emotion: accountability in a simulated organization

Documents