Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

IS EMOTIONAL LABOR MORE DIFFICULT FOR SOME THAN FOR OTHERS? A MULTILEVEL, EXPERIENCE‐SAMPLING STUDY

JUDGE, TIMOTHY A., WOOLF, ERIN FLUEGGE, HURST, CHARLICE·2009·Personnel Psychology

Abstract

In response to 2 areas for development in the emotional labor literature—(a) the contemporaneous associations between emotional labor and affective reactions, and (b) whether emotional labor might be more personally costly for some employees than others—this study tested a conceptual model explaining the differential effects of deep and surface acting on job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion via their asymmetrical influences on mood, and whether extraverts fare better when engaging in emotional labor. As expected, surface acting was positively associated with negative mood, and this explained some of the association of surface acting with increased emotional exhaustion and decreased job satisfaction. Contrary to hypotheses, deep acting was unrelated to job satisfaction and was associated with lower positive affect. Extraversion moderated several emotional labor relationships such that, in general, surface and deep acting had more positive (or less negative) effects for extraverts (compared to introverts). Overall, the results support the importance of considering the roles of mood and disposition in the impact of emotional labor.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01129.x

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
JUDGE, T. A., WOOLF, E. F., & HURST, C.
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-02-04
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
57-88
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
OpenAlex
W2107674768
Cited by
466
References
12
FWCI
82.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.