Journal List > Yonsei Med J > v.59(2) > 1032247

Jeung, Kim, and Chang: Emotional Labor and Burnout: A Review of the Literature

Abstract

This literature review was conducted to investigate the association between emotional labor and burnout and to explore the role of personality in this relationship. The results of this review indicate that emotional labor is a job stressor that leads to burnout. Further examination of personality traits, such as self-efficacy and type A behavior pattern, is needed to understand the relationships between emotional labor and health outcomes, such as burnout, psychological distress, and depression. The results also emphasized the importance of stress management programs to reduce the adverse outcomes of emotional labor, as well as coping repertories to strengthen the personal potential suitable to organizational goals. Moreover, enhancing employees' capacities and competence and encouraging a positive personality through behavior modification are also necessary.

INTRODUCTION

Job stress is now a much-discussed topic and has drawn the focus of popular media. It can lead to negative physiological, psychological, and behavioral responses among employees.123 With the expansion of service industries, emotional labor has emerged as a new job stressor. When employees regulate or suppress their emotions in exchange for wages, they are considered to be performing emotional labor.
The service industry plays a crucial role in today's world economies. Indeed, service activities now exceed approximately 70% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States, as well as in European countries.4 Thus, emotional labor is likely to be common among most employees across several vocational fields, not just those that entail services to the public. Morris and Feldman5 indicated that the significance of emotional labor has been acknowledged in a variety of occupations. Today, most organizations manage or regulate employees' emotions in order to accomplish their organizational goals. These regulations and requirements have been found to be more prevalent in jobs that demand constant interactions with customers or clients.
This literature review was performed to demonstrate the association between emotional labor and burnout and to investigate the role of personality traits, such as self-efficacy and type A behavior pattern (TABP), in this relationship.

DEFINITIONS OF EMOTIONAL LABOR

Beginning with the work by Hochschild,6 literature on emotional labor has grown immensely in the last three decades.78 The term “emotional labor” is appropriate only when emotional work is exchanged for something, such as wages or some other type of valued compensation. Wharton9 remarked that such work is not only performed for wages, but also under the control of others. However, despite remarkable progress in academic research on emotional labor, some important questions remain unsolved.
Previous research has demonstrated that emotional labor contributes to negative attitudes, behaviors, and poor health of the employee.56 To highlight its constituting components, comprehensive definition and a theoretical model have been performed, which are expected to explain negative outcomes, such as individual stress and adverse health outcomes. There are various conceptualizations of emotional labor as a strategic model,6 a job characteristics model,5 and a mixed model proposed by Grandey.10
Hochschild6 defined emotional labor as “the management of feelings to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display (p. 7).” According to this perspective, managing emotions is recognized as one way for employees to achieve organizational norms or goals. Ashforth and Humphrey11 defined emotional labor as “the act of displaying appropriate emotions, with the goal to engage in a form of impression management for the organization (p. 90).” They proposed that emotional labor should be positively associated with task effectiveness, provided that the clients perceive the expression as sincere. They also suggested that if employees are not expressing genuine emotions, emotional labor may not become detrimental for them by creating a need to distinguish from their own emotions.
Morris and Feldman5 defined emotional labor as the “effort, planning, and control needed to express organizationally desired emotion during interpersonal transactions (p. 987).” This definition includes the organizational expectations for employees concerning their interactions with the clients, as well as the internal state of tension or conflict that occurs when employees have to display fake emotions, which is known as emotional dissonance. Grandey10 defined emotional labor as the process of managing emotions such that they are suitable to organizational or professional display rules. This conceptualization assumes that some organizations or professions have their own limited or typical set of emotions that are to be displayed while interacting with clients.

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF EMOTIONAL LABOR

These approaches indicate that emotions are being managed and regulated in the workplace to meet an organization's display rules, and suggest either individual or organizational outcomes of emotional labor. For example, Schaubroeck and Jones12 found that emotional labor was more likely to elicit symptoms of ill-health among employees who identified less, or were less involved, with their jobs. Several studies of emotional labor in particular occupations have documented that it can be exhausting, be considered as stressful, and increase the risk of psychological distress and symptoms of depression.91314 Hochschild6 and other researchers have proposed that emotional labor is stressful and may lead to burnout.
Emotional labor has been linked to various job-related negative behaviors and adverse health outcomes, such as job dissatisfaction, loss of memory, depersonalization, job stress, hypertension, heart disease, emotional exhaustion, and burnout,8 and has even been shown to exacerbate cancer.15 For example, Zapf8 revealed that emotional labor in combination with organizational problems, was related to burnout.
In addition to the negative effects of emotional labor, it is well known that emotional labor itself is closely related to workplace violence. Employees working in service sectors are more likely to be exposed to occupational violence from their clients while performing their duties, compared to those of other industries, such as manufacturing, and those who engage in white-collar jobs. Client violence is very common in today's modern industrialized society and includes client-, patient-, customer-, and prisoner-initiated violence.16 In Western countries, high risk jobs of client violence were found to be “caring jobs,” such as police; firefighters; teachers; and welfare, health care, and social security workers.16 Approximately 10% of health care workers in the United Kingdom had reported a minor injury, while 16% of them had been verbally abused.17 In the United States, 46–100% of health care providers are estimated to have been assaulted while performing their duties.18 Accordingly, when researchers try to examine the relationship between emotional labor and its negative consequences, such as health problems and work disabilities, it is recommended that the combined effects of emotional labor and workplace violence including verbal abuse from the clients be considered.

BURNOUT

Burnout research has its roots in service industry sectors, such as caregiving, in which the core aspect of the job is the relationship between provider and recipient.19 Burnout is a state of emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion caused by excessive and prolonged stress.20 Maslach and Jackson21 defined it as “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and cynicism that occur frequently among individuals who do ‘people-work’ of some kind (p. 99).” In contrast to the approach proposed by Maslach, et al.,19 other researchers have argued that job burnout might be reduced to a single common experience, namely exhaustion.22 Studies of psychological burnout have been conducted in several countries, including Norway,23 Israel,242526 Canada,27 the United States,28 and Korea,29 and have produced remarkably similar findings.

BURNOUT AND HEALTH OUTCOMES

Burnout from work-related demands or tension is of utmost concern for organizations because they incur high costs in the form of negative outcomes.30 Burnout is a negative emotional reaction to one's job that results from prolonged exposure to a stressful work environment.1931 It is a state of exhaustion and emotional depletion that is dysfunctional for the employee and leads to absenteeism, turnover, and reduced job performance.323334 Moreover, these effects are particularly problematic for health care professionals, whose lower job performance can also have an adverse effect on their patients' health.35
The importance of burnout is suggested by its relationship with such outcomes as decreased job performance and physical/mental health problems.36 According to the conservation of resources (COR) theory, burnout occurs over prolonged periods of having few resources, which causes other resources to become compromised as well.37 Unfortunately, the extent to which employees engage in the regulation of their emotions is related to stress-induced physiological arousal,383940 as well as with job strain, which are manifested in the form of poor work attitudes and burnout.124142434445 However, the specific mechanisms to understand the relationship between emotional labor and stress outcomes have not yet been clarified.
Several studies on the relationships between emotional labor and burnout have been based on “the dissonance theory of emotional labor.” According to this theory, emotional dissonance is considered a cornerstone of emotional labor.46 It is conceptualized as a conflict between felt and displayed emotions, encompassing both potential and actually manifested emotions.47 Morris and Feldman5 found that employees gradually begin to experience burnout when their capacity for emotional dissonance is exhausted as a result of emotional labor. Zapf8 also suggested that emotional dissonance is found to be positively associated with burnout.
In particular, employees are depleted of energy and become fatigued if they are continuously exposed to situations requiring emotional regulation (e.g., adherence to excessive display rules). As a coping strategy with this emotional exhaustion, they may demonstrate negative and cynical attitudes toward others and express dehumanizing and indifferent responses, which, in turn, can result in poor productivity and, finally, in a negative evaluation of themselves.48 Burnout manifests differently depending on the job, although it appears to be much more common among workers involved in customer service than among those in the manufacturing industry.49 Taken together, these findings suggest that greater attention should be paid to burnout among caregivers, given their high degree of emotional labor.50 Indeed, it is especially important, given that the effects of burnout span beyond individual members and can affect entire organizations. In other words, burnout is inimical to the productivity and efficiency of the organization, thereby increasing turnover, facilitating negative job attitudes, and decreasing performance.285152 While there is a growing body of evidence that emotional labor can be stressful and lead to burnout symptoms, research has not sufficiently addressed the differing factors of emotional labor as predictors of burnout.

BURNOUT AS A NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE OF EMOTIONAL LABOR

Due to global competition and the spread of the service sector, today's world of work is rapidly changing.53 This transformation leads to increasing mental workloads and demands.54 Although previous literature has revealed that burnout can occur both within and outside human service sectors,55 caregiving service professionals are more likely to face a relatively higher risk of burnout.56 The occupational perspective regards occupational grouping as being relevant in and of itself, meaning that workers employed in “high emotional labor” jobs6 and “high burnout” jobs48 report higher levels of stress than those in other jobs.
It has been generally assumed that there is something unique about “caregiving” professions that make their jobs more likely to feel burnout.28575859 Interactions with clients that are frequent and long-lasting have been regarded as antecedents to burnout.48 Researchers have documented differences in the dimensions of burnout for various service and caregiving professions,60 and have developed taxonomies of “high-burnout” jobs based on the frequency of interactions48 and the emotional control needed while interacting with clients.
The literature on emotional labor is focused on customer service, where interactions are less spontaneously “emotional” despite the necessity of high levels of emotional management or regulation to maintain positive relationships to customers.661 Hochschild6 proposed a list of “emotional labor jobs” that involve frequent customer contact and control over the emotional displays of the employees by their organization. However, comparing the occupations on Hochschild's list to non-emotional labor jobs has not been very useful in determining stress and burnout.121462 Employees in the “high emotional labor” grouping do not feel higher levels of emotional exhaustion than those in the “low emotional labor” grouping. This finding could be attributed to the fact that emotional labor is not a dichotomous variable; there may be a wide range of emotional labor demands with many jobs having some level of these demands.545
High levels of job demand may contribute to numerous stress reactions, such as burnout and depression, which may finally result in absenteeism, work disability, and turnover.63 For, example, Jeung, et al.64 reported that sub factors of emotional labor are positively related to burnout. These results indicate that conflicts and tensions occurring in the process of interactions with clients, and experiencing emotional dissonance are more likely to increase the risk of burnout. In addition, a shortage of supportive and protective systems in the organization also contributes to job burnout.
Emotional demand and regulation are more common in the human and public service occupations wherein customers constantly demand attention.65 People who are frequently faced with other people are more likely to feel burnout.66

REASONINGS FOR THE EFFECTS OF EMOTIONAL LABOR ON BURNOUT

Some mechanisms provide theoretical explanations about whether emotional labor contributes to burnout.42 According to the COR theory,67 when individual resources are threatened or lost, these losses cause anxiety and distress, thereby increasing physiological arousal and health problems.68 Experiencing interpersonal stressors is recognized as one of the most threatening sources of stress, posing a threat to self-image and resulting in increased cortisol response and perceived distress than other stressors.69 Previous research has reported that employees are likely to respond to angry or rude customers by suppressing genuine emotion.70 Such frequent self-regulatory efforts may lead to a loss of resources. First, the inauthenticity of faking expressions, or surface acting,42 reduces one's self-worth and self-efficacy. Such acts of strategic modification of one's emotions, thoughts, and behaviors require cognitive effort.8 This reduction of resources may play a crucial role in enhancing the stressful situation. Moreover, the loss of resources due to cognitive effort is more likely to contribute to strained or impaired well-being.71 Second, suppressing emotions requires energy resources, as exhibited by increased physiological arousal, higher levels of glucose, and decreased motivation.72 Consequently, continuous exposure to stress due to excessive emotional demands might activate the stress system, including the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and the sympathetic nervous system. Furthermore, excessive and long-lasting emotional demands could contribute to depression or anxiety and behavioral problems, such as alcohol abuse or physical inactivity.73 Third, suppressing genuine emotions results not in actually showing or directly changing those feelings, but in fewer social connections with others,38 which consequently reduces social resources.
A second explanation for the mechanisms of the causal relationship between emotional labor and burnout has focused on emotional acting: surface acting. Surface acting is more likely to cause emotional exhaustion due to the effort required to fake or suppress negative emotions.41 Surface acting consistently produces emotional exhaustion that results in diminished well-being.74 Research suggests that surface acting is likely to deplete energy, as it involves long-lasting internal tension between one's displayed (suppressed) and true feelings, which in turn causes emotional dissonance. According to the person-centered concept of authenticity, conforming to external expectations leads to self-alienation and compromised feelings of authentic living.75 Empirical research has revealed that accepting external influences and acting against one's internal emotions has a significant association with anxiety, stress, and diminished subjective and psychological wellness.75 The continuous experience of emotional dissonance is more likely to increase the risk of high levels of psychological effort, thereby leading to loss of resources.7677 and finally resulting in burnout. Surface acting involves displaying inauthentic emotions that can produce negative responses from others. Scott and Barnes78 examined the relationship of emotional labor with work withdrawal, and they found that surface acting is significantly associated with negative effects and work withdrawal.
Overall, research has documented that faking or suppressing one's genuine emotions is linked to stress, resource depletion,72 and burnout.79

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND BURNOUT

Experiencing frequent and chronic job stress, combined with a low sense of efficacy for managing job demands and lack of social support when faced with difficult situations and environments, is more likely to increase risk of burnout.8081 Indeed, over the last two decades, several studies have demonstrated that individual differences may play an important role in developing burnout. Several systematic reviews and meta-analytical studies examining the predictors of burnout emphasized the role of some individual characteristics.828384 Jeung, et al.64 revealed positive associations between the three sub-factors of emotional labor and TABP to burnout, and a negative association between self-efficacy and burnout among Korean dental hygienists. A growing body of research is proposing that self-efficacy and TABP operate as personal modifiers against job burnout caused by emotion regulation.
Although much research on burnout has concentrated on working environments, personality traits were also found to play a pivotal role in the development of job burnout.19 Recently, several investigations have documented that job autonomy, organizational climate, and some personality traits play significant roles as modifiers or mediators in the relationship between emotional labor and job burnout.85 Numerous works have emphasized the importance of personality traits; they have stressed the personal experience of emotional labor over time and identified personality traits as moderators.
Unfortunately, research on job stress has ignored the role of individual differences in the stress process. One personal characteristic that is likely to play an crucial role in the relationships among work stress, work control, and employee adaptation is self-efficacy.86 Beyond the environmental factors influencing burnout, it is also important to consider individual and self-regulatory factors that result in useful resources.
Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute a course of action needed to meet the demands of a situation,87 and it refers to judgments that employees make concerning their ability to do what is needed to successfully conduct their jobs.88 As expected, work control and autonomy decreased the adverse effects of job stress on outcome measures only for employees who recognized themselves as having high levels of self-efficacy in the work place.
Workers who have high levels of self-efficacy believe they have the potential for mastering stressors more effectively than those with lower self-efficacy. A range of self-efficacy levels is likely to be associated with variance in employees' reactions because self-efficacy affects the choice of coping behaviors and the level of persistence in overcoming job-related barriers and stressors.89 Most research studies have emphasized the individual perceptions of one's social capital, such as self-efficacy and job autonomy, which can reduce or buffer against the tension of emotional labor.7790
Behavior patterns as a protective factor have long been implicated as a health risk factor. People with TABP as conceptualized by Friedman and Rosenman91 are described as “impulsive, competitive, aggressive, impatient, and more susceptible to developing the symptoms of coronary heart disease.” Consequently, these individuals are less likely to have a possibility of coping with job stress. Numerous studies have reported a significant relationship between job strain and a linear combination of TABP and job characteristics. Froggatt and Cotton92 revealed that type A individuals experience more stress when their work load increases, and Choo93 found a positive relationship between job stress and TABP. Fisher,94 however, did not find a moderating effect of TABP on the relationship of role stress to job satisfaction and performance.
Nevertheless, little is known as to why people with TABP are more susceptible to adverse health outcomes. Abush and Burkhead95 analyzed the relationship between TABP, perceived job characteristics, and feelings of job tension, and they found a significant relationship between job tension and a linear combination of TABP and job characteristics. Thus, research shows that the tendency to experience burnout cannot be separated from personality or behavior pattern.96

CONCLUSION

The results of this review suggest that emotional labor, as a new job stressor in modern society, leads to burnout and that an examination of some personality traits, such as self-efficacy and TABP, is needed to understand the relationship between emotional labor and its consequences, such as burnout. These results also emphasize the importance of stress management programs to reduce the adverse outcomes caused by emotional labor and of coping repertories to promote the personal potential suitable to organizational goals and norms. Moreover, enhancing individual capacities and encouraging a healthy personality through behavior modifications are required. Furthermore, legislation at the state level is needed for the protection of negative impacts caused by emotional labor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the Fire Fighting Safety & 119 Rescue Technology Research and Development Program funded by National Fire Agency (“MPSS-2015-80”).

Notes

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

1. Baker DB. The study of stress at work. Annu Rev Public Health. 1985; 6:367–381.
crossref
2. Ganster DC, Schaubroeck J. Work stress and employee health. J Manage. 1991; 17:235–271.
crossref
3. Kahn RL, Byosiere P. Stress in organizations. In : Dunnette MD, Hough LM, editors. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologists Press;1992. p. 571–650.
4. Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA world factbook 2009. New York: Skyhorse Publishing Inc.;2008.
5. Morris JA, Feldman DC. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Acad Manage Rev. 1996; 21:986–1010.
crossref
6. Hochschild AR. The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press;1983.
7. Fisher CD, Ashkanasy NM. The emerging role of emotions in work life: an introduction. J Organ Behav. 2000; 21:123–129.
crossref
8. Zapf D. Emotion work and psychological well-being: a review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2002; 12:237–268.
9. Wharton AS. The affective consequences of service work: managing emotions on the job. Work Occup. 1993; 20:205–232.
10. Grandey AA. Emotion regulation in the workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000; 5:95–110.
crossref
11. Ashforth BE, Humphrey RH. Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity. Acad Manage Rev. 1993; 18:88–115.
crossref
12. Schaubroeck J, Jones JR. Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. J Organ Behav. 2000; 21:163–183.
crossref
13. Pugliesi K, Shook SL. Gender, jobs, and emotional labor in a complex organization. In : Erickson RJ, Cuthbertson-Johnson B, editors. Social perspectives on emotion. vol. 4. New York: JAI;1997. p. 283–316.
14. Wharton AS. Service with a smile: understanding the consequences of emotional labor. In : MacDonald CL, Sirianni C, editors. Working in the service society. Philadelphia (PA): Temple University Press;1996. p. 91–112.
15. Mann S. ‘People-work’: emotion management, stress and coping. Br J Guid Counc. 2004; 32:205–221.
crossref
16. Mayhew C. Occupational violence in industrialized countries: types, incidence patterns, and ‘at risk’ groups of workers. In : Gill M, Fisher B, Bowie V, editors. Violence at work: causes, patterns and prevention. Cullompton: Willan Publishing;2002. p. 21–40.
17. Cox T, Leather P. The prevention of violence at work: application of a cognitive behavioural theory. In : Cooper CL, Robertson IT, editors. International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Oxford: Wiley;1994. p. 213–245.
18. Cal/OSHA. Guidelines for security and safety for health care and community service workers. San Francisco (CA): Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Industrial Relations;1998.
19. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52:397–422.
crossref
20. Freudenberger HJ. The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions. Psychotherapy (Chic). 1975; 12:73–82.
crossref
21. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav. 1981; 2:99–113.
crossref
22. Malach-Pines A. The burnout measure, short version. Int J Stress Manag. 2005; 12:78–88.
crossref
23. Richardsen AM, Burke RJ, Leiter MP. Occupational demands, psychological burnout and anxiety among hospital personnel in Norway. Anxiety Stress Coping. 1992; 5:55–68.
crossref
24. Shirom A. Burnout in work organizations. In : Cooper CL, Robertson IT, editors. International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley;1989. p. 25–48.
25. Etzion D. Moderating effect of social support on the stress-burnout relationship. J Appl Psychol. 1984; 69:615–622.
crossref
26. Etzion D, Pines A. Sex and culture in burnout and coping among human service professionals: a social psychological perspective. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1986; 17:191–209.
crossref
27. Burke RJ, Deszca E. Correlates of psychological burnout phases among police officers. Hum Relat. 1986; 39:487–501.
crossref
28. Jackson SE, Schwab RL, Schuler RS. Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. J Appl Psychol. 1986; 71:630–640.
crossref
29. Golembiewski RT, Scherb K, Boudreau RA. Burnout in cross-national settings: generic and model-specific perspectives. In : Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T, editors. Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis;1993. p. 218–236.
30. Halbesleben JRB, Buckley MR. Burnout in organizational life. J Manage. 2004; 30:859–879.
crossref
31. Maslach C, Jackson SE. Burnout in organizational settings. In : Oskamp S, editor. Applied social psychology annual: applications in organizational settings (Vol 5). 1st ed. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications;1984. p. 133–153.
32. Grandey AA, Dickter DN, Sin HP. The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. J Organ Behav. 2004; 25:397–418.
crossref
33. Halbesleben JR, Bowler WM. Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of motivation. J Appl Psychol. 2007; 92:93–106.
crossref
34. Wright TA, Cropanzano R. Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. J Appl Psychol. 1998; 83:486–493.
crossref
35. Le Blanc PM, Hox JJ, Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Peeters MC. Take care! The evaluation of a team-based burnout intervention program for oncology care providers. J Appl Psychol. 2007; 92:213–227.
crossref
36. Taris TW. Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work Stress. 2006; 20:316–334.
crossref
37. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989; 44:513–524.
crossref
38. Butler EA, Egloff B, Wilhelm FH, Smith NC, Erickson EA, Gross JJ. The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion. 2003; 3:48–67.
crossref
39. Gross JJ, Levenson RW. Emotional suppression: physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993; 64:970–986.
crossref
40. Gross JJ, Levenson RW. Hiding feelings: the acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997; 106:95–103.
crossref
41. Brotheridge CM, Grandey AA. Emotional labor and burnout: comparing two perspectives of “people work”. J Vocat Behav. 2002; 60:17–39.
crossref
42. Brotheridge CM, Lee RT. Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002; 7:57–67.
crossref
43. Grandey AA. When “the show must go on”: surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Acad Manage J. 2003; 46:86–96.
crossref
44. Grandey AA, Tam AP, Brauburger AL. Affective states and traits in the workplace: diary and survey data from young workers. Motiv Emot. 2002; 26:31–55.
45. Pugliesi K. The consequences of emotional labor: effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Motiv Emot. 1999; 23:125–154.
46. Grandey AA, Diefendorff JM, Rupp DE. Emotional labor in the 21st century: diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. New York: Routledge;2012.
47. Van Dijk PA, Brown AK. Emotional labour and negative job outcomes: an evaluation of the mediating role of emotional dissonance. J Manag Organ. 2006; 12:101–115.
crossref
48. Cordes CL, Dougherty TW. A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Manage Rev. 1993; 18:621–656.
crossref
49. Sears SF Jr, Urizar GG Jr, Evans GD. Examining a stress-coping model of burnout and depression in extension agents. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000; 5:56–62.
crossref
50. Meerabeau L, Page S. ‘Getting the job done’: emotion management and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nursing. In : Bendelow G, Williams SJ, editors. Emotions in social life: critical themes and contemporary issues. London, UK: Routledge;1998. p. 295–312.
51. Cameron SJ, Horsburgh ME, Armstrong-Stassen M. Job satisfaction, propensity to leave and burnout in RNs and RNAs: a multivariate perspective. Can J Nurs Adm. 1994; 7:43–64.
52. Lee RT, Ashforth BE. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. J Appl Psychol. 1996; 81:123–133.
crossref
53. Howard A. A framework for work change. In : Howard A, editor. The changing nature of work. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass;1995. p. 3–44.
54. Paoli P, Merlie D. Third European survey on working conditions 2000. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions;2001.
55. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. Validation of the maslach burnout inventory-general survey: an internet study. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2002; 15:245–260.
crossref
56. Schaufeli WB. Past performance and future perspectives of burnout research. SA J Ind Psychol. 2003; 29:1–15.
crossref
57. Cherniss C. Long-term consequences of burnout: an exploratory study. J Organ Behav. 1992; 13:1–11.
crossref
58. Leiter MP, Maslach C. The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. J Organ Behav. 1988; 9:297–308.
crossref
59. Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T. The future of burnout. In : Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T, editors. Professional burnout: recent developments in theory and research. Philadelphia (PA): Taylor & Francis;1993. p. 253–259.
60. Singh J, Goolsby JR, Rhoads GK. Behavioral and psychological consequences of boundary spanning burnout for customer service representatives. J Mark Res. 1994; 31:558–569.
crossref
61. Van Maanen J, Kunda G. “Real feelings”: emotional expression and organizational culture. In : Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behaviour. Greenwich: JAI Press;1989. p. 44–103.
62. Wharton AS, Erickson RJ. The consequences of caring: exploring the links between women's job and family emotion work. Sociol Q. 1995; 36:273–296.
crossref
63. Shaufeli W, Enzmann D. The burnout companion to study and research. A critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis;1998.
64. Jeung DY, Lee HO, Chung WG, Yoon JH, Koh SB, Back CY, et al. Association of emotional labor, self-efficacy, and type a personality with burnout in Korean dental hygienists. J Korean Med Sci. 2017; 32:1423–1430.
crossref
65. Farber BA. Stress and burnout in the human service professions. New York: Pergamon;1983.
66. Schwab RL. Teacher burnout: moving beyond “psychobabble”. Theory Pract. 1983; 22:21–26.
crossref
67. Hobfoll SE, Freedy J. Conservation of resources: a general stress theory applied to burnout. In : Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T, editors. Professional burnout: recent developments in theory and research. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis;1993. p. 115–129.
68. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002; 6:307–324.
crossref
69. Almeida DM. Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005; 14:64–68.
crossref
70. Diefendorff JM, Richard EM, Yang J. Linking emotion regulation strategies to affective events and negative emotions at work. J Vocat Behav. 2008; 73:498–508.
crossref
71. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 85:348–362.
crossref
72. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Tice DM. The strength model of self-control. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007; 16:351–355.
crossref
73. Lim SS, Lee W, Hong K, Jeung D, Chang SJ, Yoon JH. Facing complaining customer and suppressed emotion at worksite related to sleep disturbance in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31:1696–1702.
crossref
74. Yagil D. The mediating role of engagement and burnout in the relationship between employees' emotion regulation strategies and customer outcomes. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2012; 21:150–168.
crossref
75. Wood AM, Linley PA, Maltby J, Baliousis M, Joseph S. The authentic personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. J Couns Psychol. 2008; 55:385–399.
crossref
76. Diefendorff JM, Gosserand RH. Understanding the emotional labor process: a control theory perspective. J Organ Behav. 2003; 24:945–959.
crossref
77. Grandey AA, Fisk GM, Steiner DD. Must “service with a smile” be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90:893–904.
crossref
78. Scott BA, Barnes CM. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Acad Manage J. 2011; 54:116–136.
crossref
79. Bono JE, Vey MA. Toward understanding emotional management at work: a quantitative review of emotional labor research. In : Härtel CE, Zerbe CE, Ashkanasy NM, editors. Emotions in organizational behavior. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;2015. p. 213–233.
80. Leiter MP. Burn-out as a crisis in self-efficacy: conceptual and practical implications. Work Stress. 1992; 6:107–115.
crossref
81. Schmitz N, Neumann W, Oppermann R. Stress, burnout and locus of control in German nurses. Int J Nurs Stud. 2000; 37:95–99.
crossref
82. Lee RT, Seo B, Hladkyj S, Lovell BL, Schwartzmann L. Correlates of physician burnout across regions and specialties: a meta-analysis. Hum Resour Health. 2013; 11:48.
crossref
83. Brown CG. A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy and burnout in teachers. Educ Child Psychol. 2012; 29:47–63.
84. Alarcon G, Eschleman KJ, Bowling NA. Relationships between personality variables and burnout: a meta-analysis. Work Stress. 2009; 23:244–263.
crossref
85. Jex SM, Britt TW. Organizational psychology: a scientist-practitioner approach. 3rd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons;2014.
86. Jimmieson NL. Employee reactions to behavioural control under conditions of stress: the moderating role of self-efficacy. Work Stress. 2000; 14:262–280.
crossref
87. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84:191–215.
crossref
88. Riggs ML, Knight PA. The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model. J Appl Psychol. 1994; 79:755–766.
crossref
89. Gist ME, Mitchell TR. Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad Manage Rev. 1992; 17:183–211.
crossref
90. Heuven E, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Huisman N. The role of self-efficacy in performing emotion work. J Vocat Behav. 2006; 69:222–235.
crossref
91. Friedman M, Rosenman RH. Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Fawcett Crest;1974.
92. Froggatt KL, Cotton JL. The impact of type A behavior pattern on role overload-induced stress and performance attributions. J Manage. 1987; 13:87–98.
crossref
93. Choo F. Job stress, job-performance, and auditor personality-characteristics. Auditing J Pract Theory. 1986; 5:17–34.
94. Fisher RT. Role stress, the type A behavior pattern, and external auditor job satisfaction and performance. Behav Res Account. 2001; 13:143–170.
crossref
95. Abush R, Burkhead EJ. Job stress in midlife working women: relationships among personality type, job characteristics, and job tension. J Couns Psychol. 1984; 31:36–44.
crossref
96. Khan S. Relationship of job burnout and type A behaviour on psychological health among secretaries. Int J Bus Manag. 2011; 6:31–38.
crossref
TOOLS
ORCID iDs

Da-Yee Jeung
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4730-8814

Sei-Jin Chang
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9347-3592

Similar articles