Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.38(1) > 1057625

TOOLS
Jeong, Choi, and Choi: The effects of emotional labor on burnout, turnover intention, and job satisfaction among clinical dental hygienists
Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2014;38(1):50-58.

Published online: 12 March 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2014.38.1.50

The effects of emotional labor on burnout, turnover intention, and job satisfaction among clinical dental hygienists

Su-Bin Jeong1, Eun-Mi Choi2, Jun-Seon Choi3

1Department of Dental Hygiene, Graduate School of Public Health, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea

2Department of Dental Hygiene, Kyungdong University, Wonju, Korea

3Department of Dental Hygiene, Gachon University College of Health Science, Incheon, Korea

Corresponding Author: Jun-Seon Choi Department of Dental Hygiene, Gachon University College of Health Science, 191, Hambakmoero, Yeonsu-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 406-799, Korea Tel: +82-32-820-4374 Fax: +82-32-820-4374 E-mail: junseon@gachon.ac.kr

Received 27 October 2013       Revised 28 December 2013       Accepted 27 February 2014

Copyright © 2014 Journal of Korean Academy of Oral Health

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of emotional labor on burnout, turnover intention, and job satisfaction.

Methods

Dental hygienists were surveyed over a period of 13 days during March, 2013. Data from the completed questionnaires (N=202) were analyzed using the t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

Higher levels of emotional labor resulted in higher levels of burnout and turnover intention, as well as lower levels of job satisfaction. The variable showing the largest mediating effect between emotional labor and burnout was emotional intelligence. Supervisor support had the largest mediating effect between emotional labor and turnover intention, as well as emotional labor and job satisfaction.

Conclusions

It is known that emotional labor has negative effects on burnout, turnover intention, and job satisfaction. To reduce the negative effects caused by emotional labor, it is necessary to foster the development of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy of employees. Employers’ efforts to improve supervisor and colleague support for the employees should be made to reduce such negative effects.

Keywords: Burnout, Emotional intelligence, Emotional labor, Self-efficacy

References

1. Shin HS, An ES. Measuring the efficiency of dental hospitals with measurement of the service quality. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2012; 36:46–54.
2. An ES, Shin HS. Patient perception and satisfaction of dental services. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2011; 35:162–170.
3. Kim IS. The role of self-efficacy and social support in the relationship between emotional labor and burn out, turn over intention among hospital nurses. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2009; 15:515–526.
4. Hochschild AR. The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. 2th ed. California: University of California Press;2003. p. 244–245.
5. An JY, Jeong HS, Kim HA. The relationship between emotional labor and job stress of clinical nurses in a hospital. Korean J Occup Health Nurs. 2007; 16:139–146.
6. Park MM, Han SJ. Relations of job satisfaction with emotional labor, job stress, and personal resources in home healthcare nurses. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2013; 24:51–61.
crossref
7. Lee JY, Chi MW. Relation among emotional labors’s job stress, role conflict, ego-resilience and job turnover. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2012; 12:191–200.
crossref
8. Kim SP, Lee DR. The effects of emotional labor and job context on service employees’ psychological well-being. KAHRM. 2008; 15:79–102.
9. Putnam LL, Mumby DK. Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In: Fineman S. Emotion in organizations. 1st ed. California: Sage Publications;1993. p. 36–57.
10. Donavan DT, Brown TJ, Mowen JC. Internal benefits of service - worker customer orientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organization citizenship behavior. J Marketing. 2004; 68:124–146.
11. Halbesleben JR. Sources of social support and burnout: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. J Appl Psychol. 2006; 91:1134–1145.
crossref
12. Korean Dental Association. Why shortage of dental hygienists despite of increase the number of dental hygiene students? Seoul: Korean Dental Association News;2010. 1819:p. 31.
13. Grandey AA. Emotion regulation in the workplace: new way to conceptualize emotional labor. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000; 5:95–110.
14. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41:1149–1160.
crossref
15. Morris JA, Feldman DC. The dimensions, antecedents and consequences of emotional labor. Acad Manag Rev. 1996; 21:986–1010.
crossref
16. Wong CS, Law KS. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002; 13:243–274.
crossref
17. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J. Wright S, Johnston M. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio-causal and control beliefs. 1st ed. Berkshire: NFER-Nelson;1995. p. 35–37.
18. Price JL, Mueller CW. A causal model for turnover for nurses. Acad Manage J. 1981; 24:543–565.
19. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. MBI: the maslach burnout inventory: manual. 3rd ed. California: Consulting Psychologists Press;1996. p. 50–53.
20. Lee SL, Park SI. The effect of job stress, turnover of safeguard on job satisfaction. KAHPERD. 2006; 45:227–236.
21. Opeiu local 391. Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire [Internet]. [cited 2012 Nov 04]. Available from:. http://www.opeiu391.org/pdf/the-michigan-organizational-assessment-questionnaire.
22. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51:1173–1182.
crossref
23. Maslach C. Burnout: the cost of caring. 1st ed. New Jersey: Pren-tice hall;1982. p. 34–35.
24. Cote S, Morgan LM. A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotional regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. J Organiz Behav. 2002; 23:947–962.
25. Vakola M, Tsaousis I, Nikolaou I. The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change. J Manag Psychol. 2004; 19:88–110.
26. Zijlmans LJ, Embregts PJ, Bosman AM. Emotional intelligence, emotions, and feelings of support staff working with clients with intellectual disabilities and challenging behavior: an exploratory study. Res Dev Disabil. 2013; 34:3916–3923.
crossref
27. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Amer Psychol. 1982; 37:122–147.
crossref
28. Korean Dental Hygienists AssociationㆍKorean Association of Dental Hygiene Professor. A study on developmental direction of dental hygiene discipline in Korea. Seoul: Korean Dental Hygienists AssociationㆍKorean Association of Dental Hygiene Profes-sor;2009. p. 13–16.
29. Jung HK, Kim SC. The relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction of dental technicians. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2010; 34:553–561.

Fig. 1.
Study model.
jkaoh-38-50f1.tif
Table 1.
Information of scales
Scales (No. of questions) Range Min Max Mean±SD Cronbach’s a
Emotional labor (9) 0-36 8 34 21.71±4.93 0.799
Emotional intelligence (16) 0-64 19 59 39.50±7.83 0.887
Self efficacy (10) 0-40 4 27 16.67±3.59 0.840
Supervisor support (4) 0-16 0 16 6.81±3.44 0.865
Colleague support (4) 0-16 4 16 10.63±2.84 0.747
Burnout (15) 0-60 7 47 28.31±8.26 0.872
Turnover intention (4) 0-16 1 16 8.78±3.08 0.739
Job satisfaction (3) 0-12 1 12 7.00±2.16 0.752

5-point Likert scale: ‘absolutely no (0)’, ‘relatively no (1)’, ‘moderate (2)’, ‘relatively no (3)’, ‘absolutely yes (4)’.

Table 2.
Burnout, turnover intention, job satisfaction according to socio- demographic characteristics, working environment, emotional labor
Variables N Burnout Turnover intention Job satisfaction
M±SD P-value M±SD P-value M±SD P-value
Age (yrs) ≤25 86 28.50±7.93 0.933 7.95±3.00a 0.001 7.13±2.25 0.167
26-30 80 28.30±8.99 9.69±2.74b 6.66±2.03
≥31 36 27.89±7.51 8.75±3.46b 7.42±2.18
Marital status Unmarried 175 28.25±8.44 0.792 8.71±3.10 0.388 6.98±2.21 0.765
Married 27 28.70±7.13 9.26±2.96 7.11±1.85
Education status College 132 29.06±7.93 0.077 8.67±3.21 0.465 7.04±2.14 0.700
University 70 26.90±8.74 9.00±2.82 6.91±2.22
Household income (won)* ≤1,800,000 77 30.61±8.34 0.072 8.75±2.76 0.002 6.51±2.34 0.882
≥1,810,000 55 27.89±8.61 10.33±2.85 6.56±2.06
Working field All work 59 27.39±9.11 0.348 8.63±3.07 0.507 6.98±2.23 0.052
Surgery 31 30.10±8.07 8.61±3.09 6.52±2.35
Prosthetic 34 30.38±9.06 9.76±3.03 6.24±2.03
Orthodontic 47 27.06±7.15 8.62±3.08 7.64±1.98
Reception 23 27.57±7.06 8.35±3.05 7.43±1.97
Other 8 28.88±7.70 8.63±3.46 7.13±2.10
Career (yrs)* <4 122 28.89±9.27 0.628 9.61±2.69 0.098 6.48±2.34 0.624
≥4 80 28.77±9.23 9.97±2.76 6.56±2.10
Position Staff 152 29.07±8.32 0.023 8.82±3.05 0.787 6.82±2.16 0.040
Supervisor 50 26.02±7.72 8.68±3.20 7.54±2.10
Medical institution Hospital 51 28.08±8.25 0.816 8.98±3.36 0.596 6.76±2.31 0.380
Clinics 151 28.39±8.29 8.72±2.98 7.07±2.11
No. of dentists* <5 92 26.98±8.58 0.036 9.04±3.09 0.271 7.24±1.98 0.143
≥5 110 29.43±7.85 8.56±3.06 6.79±2.29
No. of dental hygienists* ≤16 110 28.85±8.54 0.309 9.35±2.89 0.004 6.77±2.10 0.110
≥17 92 27.66±7.91 8.10±3.16 7.26±2.22
No. of patients (daily)* ≤99 84 26.64±8.54 0.015 9.24±3.19 0.075 7.21±2.13 0.225
≥100 118 29.50±7.88 8.46±2.96 6.84±2.18
Working hours (weekly) ≤40 94 27.15±7.18 0.058 8.66±3.26 0.598 7.36±1.95 0.024
≥41 108 29.32±9.01 8.89±2.91 6.68±2.29
Working days (weekly) ≤5 140 27.42±8.25 0.021 8.61±3.25 0.208 7.20±2.21 0.043
≥6 62 30.32±7.99 9.16±2.63 6.53±1.97
Introduction of five working days Yes 141 27.45±8.10 0.023 8.53±3.23 0.058 7.20±2.21 0.042
No 61 30.31±8.36 9.36±2.63 6.52±1.97
Emotional labor* ≤21 103 25.32±7.57 <0.001 7.61±3.03 <0.001 7.73±2.01 <0.001
≥22 99 31.42±7.82 10.00±2.63 6.23±2.05

*Divided by subjects' medium score. P-value obtained from t-test or one-way ANOVA.

a ,bThe same characters were not significant by Bonferroni's multiple comparison at a=0.05.

Table 3.
Emotional intelligence, self efficacy, supervisor and colleague support according to socio-demographic characteristics, working environment, emotional labor
Variables N Emotional intelligence Self efficacy Supervisor support Colleague support
M±SD P-value M±SD P-value M±SD P-value M±SD P-value
Age (yrs) ≤25 86 38.67±7.86a 0.023 15.93±3.32 0.039† 6.86±3.11 0.102 10.48±2.71 0.200
26-30 80 38.94±7.10a 17.20±3.98 6.31±3.42 11.04±2.95
≥31 36 42.72±8.64b 17.28±2.97 7.78±4.03 10.08±2.83
Marital status Unmarried 175 39.07±7.92 0.049 16.60±3.64 0.461 6.67±3.44 0.146 10.78±2.80 0.059
Married 27 42.26±6.72 17.15±3.23 7.70±3.29 9.67±2.92
Education status College 132 38.42±7.75 0.007 16.33±3.53 0.058 6.96±3.41 0.379 10.24±2.83 0.008
University 70 41.53±7.62 17.33±3.61 6.51±3.47 11.36±2.73
Household income (won)* ≤1,800,000 77 37.44±7.87 0.185 15.95±3.69 0.044 6.48±2.99 0.474 10.21±3.00 0.363
≥1,810,000 55 39.25±7.39 17.22±3.26 6.04±3.79 10.67±2.59
Working field All work 59 40.46±7.61 0.697 17.17±3.74 0.051 7.61±2.76 0.024† 10.81±2.79 0.415
Surgery 31 39.32±8.13 16.77±3.80 6.35±3.36 10.42±2.66
Prosthetic 34 37.56±8.19 14.88±3.59 5.56±3.42 10.44±3.01
Orthodontic 47 39.74±6.21 17.06±2.99 6.45±3.93 10.87±3.04
Reception 23 39.70±9.71 17.26±3.13 8.17±3.57 9.74±2.81
Other 8 39.38±10.16 16.25±4.52 6.13±2.94 12.00±1.41
Career (yrs)* <4 122 38.91±7.74 0.187 16.21±3.55 0.024 6.64±3.29 0.393 10.91±2.84 0.083
≥4 80 40.40±7.93 17.38±3.53 7.06±3.65 10.20±2.79
Position Staff 152 38.70±7.48 0.011 16.34±3.61 0.022 6.34±3.24 0.001 10.59±2.75 0.750
Supervisor 50 41.94±8.42 17.68±3.34 8.24±3.62 10.74±3.11
Medical institution Hospital 51 39.49±7.59 0.992 16.25±3.71 0.336 5.53±3.10 0.002 10.73±2.64 0.779
Clinics 151 39.50±7.93 16.81±3.54 7.24±3.44 10.60±2.91
No. of dentists* <5 92 39.93±7.70 0.472 16.84±3.67 0.554 7.20±3.61 0.142 10.55±2.94 0.735
≥5 110 39.14±7.95 16.54±3.52 6.48±3.26 10.69±2.76
No. of dental hygienists* ≤16 110 39.35±8.06 0.774 16.66±3.81 0.967 6.82±3.41 0.960 10.35±2.86 0.122
≥17 92 39.67±7.58 16.68±3.31 6.79±3.47 10.97±2.79
No. of patients (daily)* ≤99 84 40.46±8.26 0.140 16.39±4.06 0.350 6.96±3.63 0.584 10.89±2.79 0.266
≥100 118 38.81±7.46 16.87±3.20 6.69±3.29 10.44±2.87
Working hours (weekly) ≤40 94 40.79±7.15 0.029 16.90±3.55 0.394 6.84±3.60 0.898 10.71±2.81 0.696
≥41 108 38.38±8.24 16.47±3.61 6.78±3.30 10.56±2.87
Working days (weekly) ≤5 140 40.26±7.38 0.039 16.85±3.38 0.294 6.70±3.45 0.508 10.94±2.80 0.018
≥6 62 37.79±8.57 16.27±4.01 7.05±3.41 9.92±2.81
Introduction of five working days Yes 141 40.24±7.58 0.041 16.79±3.41 0.467 6.61±3.46 0.216 10.99±2.78 0.006
No 61 37.79±8.18 16.39±3.96 7.26±3.34 9.80±2.82
Emotional labor* ≤21 103 41.06±7.49 0.004 17.26±3.26 0.017 7.67±3.14 <0.001 10.83±2.50 0.320
≥22 99 37.88±7.88 16.06±3.81 5.91±3.51 10.42±3.15

*Divided by subjects'medium score. P-value obtained from t test or one-way ANOVA.

a ,bThe same characters were not significant by Bonferroni's multiple comparison at a=0.05.

† Showed significant differences by one-way ANOVA, but not found the differences between each group.

Table 4.
The effect of mediating variable in the relationship between emotional labor and burnout
Step Variables β t P-value
2nd Mediating variable Emotional intelligence ―0.268 ―3.990 <0.001
Self efficacy ―0.153 ―2.276 0.024
Supervisor support ―0.285 ―4.769 <0.001
F=32.547 (<0.001) R2=0.398 adj.R2=0.386
3rd Independent variable Position ―0.147 ―2.361 0.019
No. of dentists 0.084 0.874 0.383
No. of patients (daily) 0.184 2.070 0.040
Working days (weekly) 0.020 0.234 0.815
Introduction of five working days+ 0.188 1.869 0.063
Emotional labor 0.462 7.280 <0.001
F=12.467 (<0.001) R2=0.277 adj.R2=0.255
4th Independent variable Position ―0.035 ―0.636 0.525
No. of dentists 0.079 0.956 0.341
No. of patients (daily) 0.179 2.323 0.021
Working days (weekly) ―0.039 ―0.523 0.602
Introduction of five working days† 0.218 2.527 0.012
Emotional labor 0.320 5.649 <0.001
Mediating variable Emotional intelligence ―0.238 ―3.739 <0.001
Self efficacy ―0.184 ―2.891 0.004
Supervisor support ―0.224 ―3.800 <0.001
F=20.342 (<0.001) R2=0.488 adj.R2=0.464

P-value obtained from hierarchical multiple regression method. Dependent variable: burnout (continuous variable).

† Yes (0), No (1).

Table 5.
The effect of mediating variable in the relationship between emotional labor and turnover intention
Step Variables β t P-value
2nd Mediating variable Supervisor support ―0.396 ―5.672 <0.001
F=10.582 (<0.001) R2=0.177 adj.R2=0.160
3rd Independent variable Age 0.020 0.209 0.835
No. of dental hygienists ―0.128 ―1.679 0.096
Household income (won) 0.356 3.802 0.001
Emotional labor 0.336 4.403 0.001
F=12.374 (<0.001) R2=0.284 adj.R2=0.261
4th Independent variable Age 0.042 0.493 0.623
No. of dental hygienists ―0.195 ―2.744 0.007
Household income (won) 0.294 3.397 0.001
Emotional labor 0.188 2.476 0.015
Mediating variable Supervisor support ―0.385 ―5.024 0.001
F=16.868 (<0.001) R2=0.405 adj.R2=0.381

P-value obtained from hierarchical multiple regression method. Dependent variable: turnover intention (continuous variable).

Table 6.
The effect of mediating variable in the relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction
Step Variables β t P-value
2nd Mediating variable Emotional intelligence 0.184 2.579 0.011
Supervisor support 0.373 5.864 <0.001
F=23.036 (<0.001) R2=0.319 adj.R2=0.305
3rd Independent variable Position 0.125 1.890 0.060
Working hours (weekly) ―0.092 ―1.346 0.180
Working days (weekly) ―0.036 ―0.400 0.689
Introduction of five working days† ―0.040 ―0.444 0.657
Emotional labor ―0.346 ―5.199 <0.001
F=8.265 (<0.001) R2=0.174 adj.R2=0.153
4th Independent variable Position 0.019 0.315 0.753
Working hours (weekly) ―0.081 ―1.328 0.186
Working days (weekly) 0.014 0.171 0.864
Introduction of five working days† ―0.098 ―1.205 0.230
Emotional labor ―0.210 ―3.373 0.001
Mediating variable Emotional intelligence 0.195 3.075 0.002
Supervisor support 0.357 5.504 <0.001
F=14.946 (<0.001) R2=0.350 adj.R2=0.327

P-value obtained from hierarchical multiple regression method. Dependent variable: job satisfaction (continuous variable).

† Yes (0), No (1).

TOOLS
Similar articles