Introduction

Since it was first described as “the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and body expression” ( Hochschild, 1983/2003, p. 7), emotional labor (EL) has been defined from different perspectives, remaining an ambiguous construct. Thus, there are different emphases in the theoretical definitions and in the measurement of the three central components: (a) demands or emotional display rules of the organization or occupation, (b) regulation strategies used by the worker to deal with such demands or rules, which would be mainly related to how to deal with emotional dissonance, and (c) emotional performance or behavior, which refers to how much the worker manages to put into practice these rules and demands in the exercise of their professional activity.

Despite the different emphasis on the elements of EL, it is possible to identify a relative agreement among researchers on the topic that EL involves the use of the workers' emotions to attract and maintain the client's attention. However, the literature has highlighted two main approaches that guide the definition of the construct: one that considers EL as internal states and/or processes and one that sees it as external emotional behaviors.

Before examining the aforementioned perspectives, it is important to highlight similarities and differences between EL and emotional dissonance, also a controversial construct related to emotional management. Based on the concept of cognitive dissonance proposed by Festinger (1962), emotional dissonance is defined as the discrepancy between the emotion felt and the emotion required ( Grandey et al., 2013). Another viewpoint considers it as the difference between the emotional behavior expressed by the individual and the emotion actually felt (Humphrey et al., 2015; Mann, 1999), which lead us to understand emotional dissonance as the behavior of showing a feigned emotion ( Gracia et al., 2014). In this sense, emotional dissonance is closer to EL conceptualization, which is reinforced by being considered a dimension of EL ( Morris & Feldman, 1996; Zapf et al., 1999). For other authors, dissonance is a powerful mediator between situational demands and EL behavior ( Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003; Rubin et al., 2005) or even a negative result of surface acting, being harmful to the worker for conflicting with his self-concept ( Pugh et al., 2011).

The diversity in the conceptualization and operationalization of EL reverberates in the imprecision about the understanding of this phenomenon and distinct predictors and consequences from EL´s models testing. Over the last 40 years, several works have sought to clarify the nature of the construct and its relationships with other variables related to the labor context. For instance, previous meta-analyses ( Ha et al., 2021; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019; Yin et al., 2019) and systematic reviews ( Kariou et al., 2021; Pujol-Cols & Dabos, 2021; Stark & Bettini, 2021) of EL sought to synthesize findings and provide more robust evidence about relationships between EL and other related variables (e.g., burnout and health outcomes, job satisfaction, personal characteristics of employees, workers' perceptions of the display rules and their functions in the environment). Other works had more particular purposes such as to investigate associations between EL and other variables such as burnout ( Jeung et al., 2018), organizational injustice, and job satisfaction among hotel employees ( Shapoval, 2019). More specific literature reviews were related to EL in different contexts and occupations such as medical professions ( Edward et al., 2017; Załuski & Makara-Studzińska, 2018), educational settings ( Ye & Chen, 2015; Yin et al., 2019), hospitality and tourism sector ( Lee & Madera, 2019), and sales ecosystem ( Klein, 2021). A narrative review showed EL’s deleterious effects on the health of employees in the workplace ranging from burnout and fatigue to hormonal imbalances, depression, suicidal tendencies, disruptions in sleep patterns, and cardiovascular diseases ( Aung & Tewogbola, 2019), whereas López et al. (2018) focus on analyzing EL main conceptualizations, research trends, and noted researchers. One integrative review examined the state of knowledge on resilience in the context of EL in nursing ( Delgado et al., 2017).

Notwithstanding the deep body of knowledge built regarding the subject, there is still ambiguity in EL conceptualization and measurement. An integrative review can “move beyond description of a body of evidence to derive new insights through integration and/or critique’ ( Elsbach & Knippenberg, 2020). In this sense, the objective of this review was to present more than a conceptual and operational systematization of the study object. From the integrative literature review carried out, we attempted to outline the main aspects that involve the EL conceptualization and its forms of measurement, providing a critical reflection on the contributions already made and the possibilities of advancing in the demarcation of the phenomenon. It is expected that the synthesis and criticism produced will promote a better alignment between how to define and measure EL, expanding its validity and its power to represent the phenomenon more adequately.

Method

This study is an integrative literature review, which uses theoretical and empirical studies (qualitative and quantitative) to obtain a broader understanding of the phenomenon analyzed, enabling the outline of various studies already published and the generation of new knowledge ( Botelho et al., 2011). As stated by Snyder (2019): “the purpose of using an integrative review method is to overview the knowledge base, to critically review and potentially reconceptualize, and to expand on the theoretical foundation of the specific topic as it develops”. The integrative review represents an adequate methodological perspective that provides theoretical and/or conceptual understandings that emerge from a synthesis and/or criticism of extant research ( Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Then, we expect to generate a critical, consistent, and understandable panorama of such a complex concept and contribute to the development of knowledge and theoretical frameworks.

To conduct this integrative literature review, the guidelines came from Torraco´s recommendations (2005) who provides a checklist for structuring the process of the review. In sum, we followed six steps: (1) the selection of research questions, (2) the definition of the criteria for literature screening, (3) the definition of categories or themes that emerged from the existing research articles, (4) analysis and synthesis, (5) logical and conceptual reasoning, and (6) implications for future research. The first author performed the first four steps of the review. The second and third authors acted as reviewers of the steps mentioned earlier, collaborating more actively in the last actions of the study.

Regarding the first step, the selection of research questions, this review sought to answer the following questions: How has EL been defined in the literature since its initial formulation by Hochschild? How is it being measured? What implications do these different ways of conceptualizing and measuring the construct have for the design of the phenomenon? How can we advance in the definition and measurement of the construct?

Following the second step, literature for the review was selected by its topical orientation to theoretical or empirical research of EL. We use the following descriptors in English for the search in the “title”, “abstract”, and “keywords” fields: “emotional labor”, “emotional work”, “emotion regulation” and “emotional dissonance”. The main databases (Google Scholar, Index Psi Periódicos, Lilacs, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, PubMed, Sage, SciELO, Scopus, and Wiley) and journals (Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology, European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Management Communication Quarterly, Organizational Psychology Review, Personnel Psychology) reviewed covered representative and diverse scientific publications on the theme being researched. Snowball searches of primary sources were additionally conducted. The inclusion criteria were: (a) only articles or book chapters whose main focus was on concepts, measures, and empirical tests of prediction and consequences models of EL published in English, Spanish, and/or Portuguese; (b) works published between January 1979 and July 2022 (the year 1979 was chosen because it was the year of the first work to refer to the phenomenon [Hochschild, 1979]), and (c) publications that were available in both print and/or electronic format.

After excluding duplicated works and making an initial screening (keywords and abstracts), each of the selected works was read in its entirety, and the information that supported the identification of EL concepts and measures was grouped into two major perspectives (step 3). To answer the research questions, in the fourth step, we identified, summarized and analyzed the main defining aspects of the construct and the proposed measures through the elaboration of a synthesis matrix for data extraction and organization ( Klopper et al., 2007). Each column of the matrix was organized according to publication date, author(s), main aspects of the proposed definitions, theoretical views of the construct (state/internal process or behavioral perspective), EL elements present in the definition, proposed dimensions for the instruments and their internal consistency, predictors, outcomes, and variables related to the construct. The synthesis matrix served as the basis for the elaboration of Figure 1 and Tables 2 and 3 of this review. Finally, we suggest a direction to better apprehend EL phenomenon (step 5) and an agenda for future research (step 6).

We considered in this review works that included models of the antecedents and consequences of the construct that presented theoretical-conceptual models in order to see how the interconnected relationships have been treated and what are the main conceptual implications in the operationalization of EL. In the end, we recognized the main defining aspects of the construct, with some variations, and the measures associated with them.

From 222 publications initially found, 78 met the criteria established (see Table 1), being coded for type and period of publication. Conceptual prepositions, quantitative, and qualitative studies on EL concepts, measures, and models were included. In the studies that presented more than one typology, the classification was made based on the main focus of the study.

Table 1.

Summary of EL Reviewed Literature by Type of Study and Period of Publication.

In brief, this article presents the research results in two sections: one that addresses the conceptual perspectives of EL found in the reviewed literature, and another one that presents the main measures related to EL. The discussion explores the theoretical and practical implications of conceptual fragmentation and that of the measurement of the phenomenon. The article concludes by suggesting a way of apprehending EL and proposing future research directions.

Results

Two major perspectives were identified for conceptualizing EL: (a) as a phenomenon that takes place at the internal level of the individual, and (b) as an external emotional manifestation of the individual that produces visible behavior.

EL as an Internal State and/or Process

This theoretical perspective highlights EL as a psychological process necessary to regulate emotions and characterizes it as a subjective state experienced by the individual due to the emotional demands arising from their occupation or organization. Eight concepts of EL were identified as an internal state or process.

The first is from Hochschild ( 1979, 1983/2003) who, based on the dramaturgical perspective of Goffman (1959), highlighted that in social interactions, people play a role in order to reveal an "appropriate self" for each occasion. Thus, EL results in a partially conscious acting by the worker to manage emotions and meet organizational or occupational rules, functioning as a bargaining chip. Although the definition of EL proposed by Hochschild covers the three central aspects of the construct, there is a main emphasis in her approach on the aspect regarding internal emotional processing to handle such demands. The author considered two strategies for emotion management, surface acting and deep acting, asserting that both involve effort and, therefore, can cause a reduction in workers' self-esteem and personal well-being through mechanisms of emotional dissonance and depersonalization.

The second concept is from Morris and Feldman (1996), who highlighted the importance of social factors in emotional experience and expression in the work context, which means that emotion is, at least in part, socially constructed. Differing from Hochschild´s emphasis on the process of managing emotions (1983/2003), the authors stressed the role of emotional display rules which determines not only the required emotion, but when and how emotions should be expressed.

The third concept is from Mann (1999, p.353), for whom EL is closed to emotional dissonance conception, encompassing two dimensions: one related to internal states (emotion suppression and faking) and another to an external factor (expectations or rules of emotional expression), excluding the expression of genuine emotions (automatic emotion regulation). The author also points out that the performance of EL does not imply that the worker perceives their control in terms of effort.

The fourth is that of Grandey (2000), who understands EL as a process of adjusting feelings and their expressions. The author emphasizes some advantages in defining EL based on surface and deep acting strategies, as they are not intrinsically value laden, such as emotional dissonance, which allows researchers to explain negative (e.g., stress) and positive (e.g., customer satisfaction) outcomes. In her model, the author proposes that both individual differences and work situations can have an effect on the degree and type of EL performed by the worker.

The fifth concept is from Schaubroeck and Jones (2000), who stress in their definition of EL the demands placed on workers to modulate the expression of their own emotions in a particular way. This understanding of EL comes close to the concept of emotional display rules introduced by Ekman (1972), who defines them as the norms of emotional expression for specific situations. The authors also point out that the degree to which individuals perceive that they are required to express or suppress certain types of emotional expression can depend both on their emotional predispositions and on the objective characteristics of their organizational roles.

The sixth concept is based on Kruml and Geddes (2000), who conceive the construct as a combination of effort and emotional dissonance, presenting EL as an internal state like Mann (1999) did, but also as an emotion management process. Emotional effort refers to the degree to which the individual performs active deep acting, modifying their feelings to match the emotional display rules. The dissonance dimension, in turn, encompasses the concepts of surface acting (expressing emotions not felt) and passive deep acting (expressing emotions felt effortlessly), placing them on opposite poles of a “continuum”. The findings from their research suggest that the effort and emotional dissonance dimensions present different results in relation to antecedents and consequences such as burnout, opening space to question whether the two dimensions are related or distinct constructs.

The seventh concept came from Brotheridge and Lee (2003), in which EL is characterized as a multidimensional construct, composed of two perspectives: (a) job-focused EL that embraces the first three dimensions proposed by Morris and Feldman (1996), comprising the perception of the emotional demands required by the organization or profession, specifically, the duration of interactions, frequency, intensity and variety of emotional display; (b) employee-focused EL that refers to the process of managing emotions and their expression to meet job demands, as stressed by Grandey (2000). In this perspective, the way workers relate to the normative expectations can affect how they will manage their emotions and their sense of authenticity. Despite recognizing the strong interrelationship between emotional dissonance and the strategies of EL, the authors do not consider it a dimension of the construct, pointing out that the effort to perform EL does not always involve or lead to emotional dissonance.

The eighth and final concept defines EL in terms of internal states and processes that maintain (surface acting) or solve (deep acting) a state of emotional dissonance ( Briët et al., 2005, as cited in Näring et al., 2007). The authors developed a perspective more centered on the individual aspects than on job demands, seeking to clarify the relationship between emotional expressiveness and workers' health. The authors argue that the actions of faking, evoking, and suppressing emotions (emotional expressiveness) are related to active efforts to cope with emotional situations and, therefore, are potential offenders for generating emotional exhaustion, increase of sympathetic activation of the cardiovascular system, and other negative psycho-physiological effects on people´s health. In this way, this conceptualization is closed to that of Hochschild (1983/2003).

EL as an External Emotional Behavior

This second general perspective emphasizes EL in terms of external aspects of emotional expression, based on the premise that compliance with emotional display rules is manifested in visible behavior, since it is not possible to observe emotional processes and internal states of the individual. In addition, it is emotional behavior that influences the interaction between individuals. Four concepts were identified that focus on the externality of the construct.

The first one is from Ashforth and Humphrey (1993), who describe EL as the act of expressing appropriate emotions to conform to the image that the company wants to project, separating the experience and the expression of emotion; the main focus is on the relationship between these visible manifestations and effectiveness in task performance. Based on social identity theory, the authors indicate that some effects of EL on workers are moderated by their degree of identification with their professional role: the greater the identification, the greater will be the desire to meet the demands of the role without critically evaluating them. For the authors, the emotional behavior expressed is the result of adopting surface, deep, or automatic acting strategies. The latter results from a genuine (naturally expected) emotion of the position (Humphrey et al., 2015) and has been corroborated by other studies ( Diefendorff et al., 2005; Glomb & Tews, 2004).

The second concept is from Zapf et al. (1999), which differs from that of Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) that views emotional dissonance as more a consequence of EL. The authors deemed emotional dissonance as an external demand rather than a response to an emotion display or a behavioral strategy. Zapf et al. preferred the term emotional work (EW) instead of EL to describe the phenomenon. They justify arguing that, in psychology, the word “labour” is employed to describe the division of labor (e.g., management relations, conflict resolution, and collective bargaining) but not when individual behavior and intrapsychic concepts are involved, as is the case with EL. Based on the action theory approach ( Frese & Zapf, 1994), which advocates the need to distribute subgoals to members of the organization for achieving organizational goals, they argued that to behave in accordance with organization's rules of emotional expression would be part of accomplishing a larger task ( Hackman, 1975). They highlighted that the multidimensionality of EW (multiple demands) would explain both positive and negative effects on health and performance.

The third concept is that of Strazdins (2000), who criticized the excessive focus of EL on service roles in the workplace, stressing the importance of contemplate multiple role contexts. She defined EL as behaviors adopted to engender emotional well-being and positive emotions in others and to create cooperative and positive social relationships. In this way, neither EL is a result of personality nor a “natural occurrence” of the individual. Instead, it is intentional and directed, involves effort, and is part of performing roles at work and in the family. Such an effort aims to produce positive emotions, to remedy or regulate negative emotions in others. In some role contexts, EL is paid, while in others it is not. In the family, EL is part of the domestic division of labor, while in the work context it is an explicit or implicit work requirement, particularly in occupations where people work is important.

The fourth and final concept identified came from Glomb and Tews (2004), who understanded EL as a network of related constructs in which emotional expressiveness behavior is the most proximal component of EL. The proposed conceptualization focuses on two dimensions: (a) the emotional behavior expressed or inhibited according to the emotional display rules and (b) the emotions felt or not felt. The interaction of these two dimensions indicates whether the emotional expression or inhibition is consistent or not with the internal feeling. The possible emotional behaviors from the combination of these two dimensions are: the act of faking or suppressing an emotion (discrepant with internal feelings) or express an emotion actually felt (not experiencing emotional dissonance or congruent with internal state). Figure 1 represents a Venn-Euler diagram to illustrate the relationships between the main elements of EL that appeared in the reviewed works.

Figure 1
Elements presented in the 12 conceptual definitions reviewed

Those relations underscored variations in defining the construct, reflecting the presence of one to more elements in the conceptualizations. Despite those differences, it is possible to highlight five general characteristics of theorizing about the construct: (a) EL occurs in face-to-face interactions, by voice or, more recently, by digital messages; (b) emotions are expressed to influence other people's emotions (direction and intensity), attitudes, and behavior; (c) emotion management follows rules that seek to control the emotional expressiveness of interaction partners; (d) those rules are related to the organizational roles performed by workers, which, in turn, have different characteristics in terms of variety, intensity, frequency of emotional display and duration of interactions, and (e) EL can have positive or negative effects (predictable or not) not only on personal and other people's well-being and performance, but on organizational results as well.

Despite this general portrayal, it was clear in this review that the proposal for a simple and uniform definition of the construct proves to be an intricate challenge to pursue. Thus, the field of study is still divided into two main approaches to understanding the phenomenon: the first based on the intra psychic subjective processes experienced by the worker and the other one based on the visible behavior regulated in the interactive process (customers, co-workers, leaders, etc.). The concept of emotional dissonance proves to be ambiguous in the definitions presented: at times it is seen as a motivating element of EL, at others it is understood as a regulation strategy, or even as a non-mandatory element for doing EL ( Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge & Lee, 2003; Grandey & Melloy, 2017). The lack of a consensual definition of EL has a direct impact on the operationalization of the measure, making the results of empirical studies often divergent or inconclusive.

EL Measures: Operationalization of the Concept and the Predictive Power

The operationalization of a construct results from the transformation of abstract concepts about a given phenomenon into concrete variables that allow empirical testing. What is involved is how to observe and measure representative aspects of the phenomenon. Thus, the effort to transpose the definition of the theoretical domain to the empirical world allows, due to its results, reflections that can lead both to a refinement of the concept in question and to the clarification of its relationships with other variables. According to Mann (1999), the creation of EL metrics allows the study of their relationships with other variables, such as well-being, performance, satisfaction, stress, exhaustion, absenteeism, among others. In addition, the measurement of EL contributes not only to the advancement of knowledge about the phenomenon, but also to the planning of people management policies that aim to preserve the best balance between the performance demanded by the position and the organization, without harm to worker health and well-being.

Table 2 presents the six main measures of EL from the perspective of internal states or processes found in the reviewed works, specifying the proposed dimensions, psychometric properties, and model test results that indicate distinct predictors and consequences for the organization and the individual ( Grandey, 2000; Grandey & Melloy, 2017; Mann, 1999).

Measures 1a ( Morris & Feldman, 1997), 2a ( Brotheridge & Lee, 2003), 3a ( Mann, 1999), and 4a ( Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000) consider emotional demands as one of the dimensions of EL, usually measured by the frequency, intensity, variety, and duration of the emotional expressions required. Morris and Feldman's (1997) included emotional dissonance as a dimension, whereas the measures by Brotheridge and Lee (2003) and Mann (1999) add emotion regulation strategies. Results of the measure 1a indicated that the task routineness, the power of role receivers, and job autonomy were antecedents of EL whereas emotional dissonance was associated with higher emotional exhaustion and lower job satisfaction. Despite showing scale reliability, measure 1a was criticized in terms of construct and content validity due to the lack of certainty that the latent variable is really the variable of interest. In turn, measure 2a revealed that surface acting correlated positively with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and negatively with personal accomplishment; confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and hypotheses test provided evidence for factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 2

Summary of EL Measures in the Perspective of States or Internal Processes (1997-2007)

Table 2

Summary of EL Measures in the Perspective of States or Internal Processes (1997-2007)

^a Not reported.

Measure 3a was the first one to quantify the degree to which emotions at work are expressed, inhibited, and faked, considering both frontline and non-frontline communications; positive correlations were also found with stress and role-play scale and a negative one with the success in communication perceived by the respondents themselves. Additionally, Mann (1999) pointed out problems with convergent validity given the fact that the study did not employ a longitudinal design. Measure 4a considered only the demands as a component of EL, approaching the Emotional Work Requirements Scale (EWRS) ( Best et al., 1997). The main finding was that perceived requirements to express positive emotions correlated positively with health symptoms among those relating lower identification with the organization, lower job involvement, and lower emotional adaptability. Threat to internal validity was discussed by the authors once some hypotheses tested involved simple linear relationships and therefore were subject to common method variance ( Podsakoff et al., 2012).

The measures 5a ( Kruml & Geddes, 2000) and 6a ( Briët et al., 2005, as cited in Näring et al., 2007) focused on the emotive effort (emotion regulation strategies) and emotional dissonance. Measure 5a presented empirical evidence that emotive effort was associated with both greater training in emotion management and less work experience with the public. In turn, emotive dissonance proved to be associated with less emotional attachment to customers, more negative emotions from customers, and less latitude (flexibility) in choosing how they express their emotions; initial evidence for convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity was provided. Measure 6a showed positive correlations between anger, anxiety, and depressed mood subscales from the Courtauld Emotional Control Scale (CECS) ( Watson & Greer, 1983) and suppression, surface acting, and deep acting subscales, suggesting convergent validity of the measure. Discriminant and criterion validity was also reported. No other studies with this measure were found.

The second perspective of operationalization of EL considers it as a motivated behavior. Table 3 presents the seven main measures reviewed discriminating the proposed dimensions, their psychometric properties, and main results.

Measure 1b (FEWS) was proposed by Zapf et al. (1999), suggesting seven dimensions: (1) expressing positive emotions, (2) expressing and dealing with negative emotions, (3) sensitivity requirements, (4) routineness, (5) showing sympathy, (6) interaction control, and (7) emotional dissonance. The authors confirmed that the emotional requirements scales are positively correlated with each other and with emotional dissonance. In turn, interaction control is negatively related to emotional dissonance. As in most of the other empirical studies, emotional dissonance is shown to be a stressor with negative effects on health. The great majority of the hypotheses regarding construct validity were supported by the data, although minor problems were reported with discriminant validity among dimensions of the scale.

Table 3

Summary of EL Measures in the Behavioral Perspective (1997-2007).

Table 3

Summary of EL Measures in the Behavioral Perspective (1997-2007).

^a Correlation of variables at a center for children with special needs (study 1). ^b Correlation of variables at a business hotel (study 2). ^c Correlation of variables in a call center (study 3). ^d Reliability obtained in the role of service provider. ^eMorris and Feldman's dissonance scale (1997). ^f Brotheridge and Lee's dissonance scale (1998). ^g Not reported

Measure 2b is the Integrative Emotional Work Inventory (IEW) ( Strazdins, 2000), which is intended to measure the frequency of emotional distress in family and work roles based on three subscales: companionship, help, and regulation. Companionship behaviors aim to create positive emotions (e.g., happiness, pride, love) and maintain social integration and contact. Helping behaviors aim to alleviate negative emotions in others (e.g., anger, sadness, fear) by listening attentively, calming, intervening, and temporarily reducing the emotional burden of others when they are stressed. Regulation involves encouraging others to improve their well-being by persuading them to stop self-destructive behavior. The results indicated that in roles in which EL is an explicit requirement (e.g., providing services and managerial positions) there seem to be no differences between men and women. On the other hand, women perform more EL when it is not paid (e.g., caring for children, family, and friends) or is an implicit and more discretionary work requirement (co-worker support). Low to moderate positive correlations with emotive and interpersonal oriented personality supported construct validity, although dimensions’ validities must be tested across roles in more different contexts to reinforce the author's argument that EL is a role demand and not an individual difference variable.

Measure 3b is the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (DEELS), developed by Glomb and Tews (2004), which emphasizes the personal effort in expressing discrete emotions (of a positive and negative quality) that are genuine, faked, and suppressed. The scales for faking and suppressing were significantly related to emotional dissonance and surface acting. The correlations between emotional exhaustion and the four components of DEELS were all significant. Those bivariate results evaluated together provide evidence of the negative impact that the strategy of faking and suppressing emotions can have. The DEELS instrument provided initial evidence of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Construct validity was established by differentiating two occupational groups for genuine and false emotional expression, but not for suppression. Future validation attempts should assess other groups or occupations in which negative emotions are suitable to be displayed, as well as other proposed measures for EL.

Additionally, four possibilities to measure emotional behavior were identified on the meta-analysis by Hülsheger and Schewe (2011). The next measures discussed (4b, 5b, 6b, and 7b), which the authors called emotional performance, were included in the review due to the centrality of this performance in the behavioral perspective of EL. Grandey (2003) proposed a measure of emotional performance that she called “affective delivery” (measure 4b) adapted from a “secret shopper” service rating scale (McLellan et al., 1998, as cited in Grandey, 2000). The measure has six items pertaining to the employee's sincerity, warmth, friendliness, and courtesy during work-related encounters. The main results found that: (1) affective delivery is positively predicted by deep acting and negatively by surface acting; (2) job satisfaction positively predicted affective delivery when mediated by deep acting; in contrast, when mediated by surface acting, the impact of job satisfaction on affective delivery was negative.

Measure 5b related emotional performance to satisfaction with empathy ( Dormann & Kaiser, 2002). Hülsheger and Schewe (2011) associated satisfaction with empathy to emotional performance, considering that organizational emotional demands on workers for more kindness and courtesy towards customers can increase satisfaction. Thus, they linked satisfaction with empathy to the emotional relationship between employees and customers that can be typified as EL ( Hochschild, 1983/2003; Zapf et al., 2021). Based on the concept that empathy is the individualized care and attention that an organization provides to its customer, the authors proposed measuring satisfaction with empathy in three aspects: (1) level of attention offered to the customer, (2) recognition of these customers' needs, and (3) how those interests are considered. Among the expected predictors for perceived satisfaction with empathy, the following stood out: task control (+), professional dissatisfaction (-), and psychosomatic complaints (-).

Measure 6b ( Diefendorff & Richard, 2003) sought to emphasize the central role of managing positive and negative emotions at work. The results suggest that employees’ perceived demands for positive displays predicted co-worker ratings of employees’ emotional displays, suggesting that these perceptions, when presented, may help employees to have a better performance.

Finally, measure 7b operationalized emotional performance as the genuine and effective expression of an emotion necessary to perform a certain role ( Bono & Vey, 2007). The measure evaluated the intensity and authenticity of emotional expressions, as well as the effectiveness in interacting in tasks that evoked either anger and irritation or enthusiasm, relating them to personality traits. The findings indicated that, for both emotions evoked, individuals with high self-monitoring are the ones who presented better emotional performance, while those with neuroticism traits presented worse performance.

In this section, we examined the main measures of EL, covering the period from 1997 to July 2022. We focused our analyses on 13 EL measures published between the years 1997 and 2007, which indicated that the construct was measured in various ways and favoring the aspects that each of the scholars considers as defining EL. We observed that efforts to establish validity varied considerably across the studies reviewed, which made it difficult to make direct comparisons among measures. For the instruments in which assessments were possible, initial evidence of validity (construct, convergent, discriminant and criterion) and reliability was found, as well as problems that threatened the quality of the measure. We underlined that measures 4b, 5b, 6b, and 7b did not show more consistent validity aspects. The analyzed measures reflect the conceptual fragmentation already highlighted in the previous section of the article. The different operationalizations of EL resulted in the articulation of models considering different predictive, mediating, moderating, and criterion variables of EL, which has hindered both the demarcation of the construct and the generation of conclusions about the nature of these relationships.

Discussion

This integrative review had two purposes: to synthetize and critically evaluate the conceptual evolution of the EL construct and the main proposed measures for its operationalization. Other reviews and theoretical papers on EL had already made notable contributions to the field by reviewing concepts, measures, and the main findings and new directions that seem promising. Some meta-analyses ( Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012) have emphasized the emotion regulation process, especially the benefits of deep acting and the disadvantages of surface acting on indicators of well-being and performance. Scott et al. (2020) argued that not only the strategies employed to regulate emotions matters to analyze intrapersonal consequences of regulating emotions, by emphasizing the role of the gap between the emotion actually felt by an individual and the emotion he/she tries to display via emotion regulation process. They attempted to demonstrate that to fully understand the nature and consequences of emotion regulation process it is necessary to take into consideration distance, direction, and “method of travel” from one emotion to another. In turn, Grandey and Gabriel (2015) highlighted the fuzzy EL conceptualizations and measurements and proposed a dynamic integration of three components (i.e., emotional requirements, emotional regulation process, and emotion performance). Our review moves in this direction, making more explicit the ambiguity that still remains in the construct and underlying the common use of methodologies that apprehend the phenomenon statically, disregarding its dynamic character.

The conceptual trajectory of EL showed differences in the nature of the construct, which poses problems for delineating the concept and its relations with other phenomena and variables. However, most of the conceptualizations identified seem to agree that EL involves mechanisms for managing emotions in the performance of various professional roles. Thus, EL is a type of work in which the use of emotions is an essential component. By analyzing the various definitions of EL proposed, we identified and endorsed three central elements: the emotional demands coming from the organization or the occupation, the internal effort to regulate emotions, and the external emotional expression. These three components are either present or absent from those conceptions, as well as having particular emphases.

Regarding emotional display rules, there is no consensus among researchers if they would be one of constituting elements of EL. For example, Morris and Feldman (1996) and Brotheridge and Lee (2003) understand them as a component of EL that assesses the frequency, variety, and intensity of the expressions of emotion required by the job. In turn, authors such as Glomb and Tews (2004) define EL as an external emotional behavior, considering that its frequency, duration, and variety would provide information about demands on the worker, capturing only their presence, but not explaining the internal process of emotion management. Also concerning these rules, Grandey and Melloy (2017) consider them as effects of a higher order resulting from shared beliefs or norms about emotional expressions ( Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Thus, such rules shared by members of a group would be a predictor of emotional performance. Such an assumption still lacks empirical evidence.

In relation to the other elements of EL, there are authors that rely on regulation strategies to define the construct, emphasizing its internal procedural character ( Brotheridge & Lee, 2003; Näring et al., 2007), while others highlight the observable aspects of EL, namely emotional performance ( Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Strazdins, 2000; Zapf et al., 1999). The conceptual distinctions of EL are also manifested in the relationships between its three components. Thus, there is no consensus among theorists about the nature of regulatory efforts (strategies) and the emotional behavior expressed, as to whether the latter, when it proves to be authentic, would reflect a deep acting strategy ( Grandey, 2000) or would be the mere confluence between the expression of an emotion genuinely felt and the organizational rules ( Glomb & Tews, 2004). And even if it were possible to identify it as a deep acting strategy, we could not rule out that social desirability bias can mask the true regulation action employed. Besides, emotional performance itself could also represent a failed attempt to express a sincere emotion and, because it seems false, it would possibly be the product of a state of emotional dissonance, thus being characterized as a surface acting strategy (e.g., expressing what you do not feel as faking a smile when you are annoyed).

The literature also raises doubts if EL would necessarily involve a state of dissonance once employees express genuine emotions in service roles. And, in considering emotional dissonance as an element of EL, it is not clear what its role would be. Should it be considered as an antecedent (incompatibility between real feelings and emotions required by work), an intrinsic characteristic (gap between emotions felt and expressed), or a consequence (a state of discomfort or stress) of EL? Until now, these different perspectives of the role of emotional dissonance in EL theory reflect distinct theoretical choices made by scholars.

The conceptual ambiguity regarding EL pointed in this review affects how the phenomenon is measured, resulting in a variety of antecedents and consequents that, in turn, leads to inconsistencies found in employee-related outcomes (e.g., well-being), customer-related outcomes (e.g., service recovery performance), and organizational-related outcomes (e.g., turnover intentions). The origin of much of the confusion about the conceptualization and measurement of EL relates to two main issues. Firstly, most of the instruments presented in this review consider EL as a general construct, which does not seem to be the most appropriate way to measure its components, since social aspects of the context and situation-specific regulation aims play a central role in predicting the strategies used in the workplace. In this sense, context-specific measures may be more fruitful ( Simões et al., 2023). Secondly, in many studies, the term "emotional labor" is used to assign elements of the construct or phenomena interconnected to it. EL suggests being a phenomenon that manifests itself in a sequence of three linked and non-sectioned components, in which emotional demands, regulation strategies, and emotional performance are interconnected and feedbacked by cycles of displayed emotions, interaction reactions over time and readjustment of worker performance ( Côté, 2005; Klein, 2021; Molano, 2018). Nevertheless, a great part of studies assessed EL process by focusing on the person, day, and interaction level of analysis, ignoring within-episode variability ( Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015; Pujol-Cols & Dabos, 2021).

In this sense, adopting methodologies in a way that can capture EL dynamic throughout interpersonal interactions, showing changes that occur in one episode, can explain shifts in emotions felt, the use of regulation strategies, and consequent outcomes related to health and performance. For instance, Gabriel and Diefendorff (2015) employed within-person path analysis to model a full set of lagged relationships among EL variables in a call center simulation, demonstrating that felt emotions, emotion regulation, and vocal tone of the participants vary substantially within a single interaction and are impacted by customer behavior. Molano (2018) carried out a multiple case study with stand-up comedy artists from Brazil and Colombia, integrating three techniques: observation of the emotional demands of the audience throughout the show, interviews to learn about the strategies employed by the artists to deal with such demands, and post-show audience surveys to assess the artist's emotional performance. The dynamics of the EL phenomenon could be observed, over time, in each of the six comedy programs attended by the author.

Success in grasping EL construct requires the academic community not to ignore its dynamic nature. By segmenting EL components, we have a fragmented phenomenon that generates contradictory or inconclusive results specially in relation to worker health and effectiveness at work. As a result, EL´s conceptual diversity has a negative impact on the improvement of recruitment and selection strategies, limiting professional development programs. Also, we highlight the relevance that scholars clearly understand that the choice to comprehend only one or two of the facets of a dynamic and integrated construct through responses to items of self-report scales has consequences for the validity and scope of the conclusions of such empirical studies. Certainly, a researcher can be more interested in exploring just one of these components more deeply. It thus becomes necessary to define clearly what is actually being measured and to recognize the limits and distancing from the phenomenon.

Another key point is the choice of the source of information of the EL element that we intent to measure. The literature has disclosed the importance of considering different sources of information to capture the complexity of EL, taking into account each of its elements ( Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Pujol-Cols & Dabos, 2021). In this regard, correctly aligning the source with the corresponding EL component can lead to obtain better explanations of the course of the phenomenon. For example, if we wish to identify emotional demands, a self-report instrument is useful. Since EL has an influential origin in the worker's perception of their work, it seems important grasping this subjective dimension beyond the concrete demands of the job, the occupation, and the organization. The internalization of rules and norms of emotional demands affects the choice of regulation strategy by the worker. However, it is also important to assess the perception of these demands by third parties, comparing self (employee) and hetero-evaluation (leader or public served/ customers). This comparison allows us to relate them to emotional performance evaluated by interaction partners. Differences in perceived emotional demands may indicate needs of employee reorientation towards clients’ expectations.

The second component of EL, the emotion regulation process, has been studied in the literature mainly in terms of surface and deep acting strategies. Diefendorff et al. (2005) demonstrated that the expression of naturally felt emotions has a leading role in displaying emotions at work, not being a proxy for low levels of surface acting nor being redundant with deep acting. Their findings pointed out that the display of naturally felt emotions was employed by individuals more often than the other two strategies, and that dispositional variables (e.g., extraversion, neuroticism) predicted its use more than situational variables (e.g., positive and negative display rules). Future studies could further investigate the third EL strategy, namely, naturally felt emotions, and to what extent to the use of surface and deep acting is related to difficulties in expressing them.

Still concerning regulatory strategies, its measures generally use self-report instruments, as it is a phenomenon that occurs internally within the person. However, it is necessary to be aware that the perception of using a strategy does not mean that workers put it into practice. What we plan to do is not always what we actually do. As we know, all data, theories, methods, and techniques have their limitations and advantages. Triangulation procedures with objective study protocols (e.g. observation, interviews, diaries, experience sampling method, physiological markers) can improve in validating and/or complementing the data, overcoming interpretation biases, maximizing information, and enabling a greater understanding of the phenomenon studied ( Flick, 2013). For instance, diary method could deepen our current knowledge of situation-specific, emotion-eliciting events, and workers’ daily use of strategies.

Considering other perceptions is even more pertinent when contemplating the third component of EL, emotional performance or behavior. Who better than co-workers, leaders, service users or customers who deal directly with the workers to know if, in fact, they present the expected emotional performance? An appropriate emotional performance depends on its validation from one’s partner of interaction. Besides, self-perceived emotional performance is more easily subject to social desirability. However, we still find studies using self-assessment instruments of emotional performance, ignoring conceptual aspects of EL that weaken the results of empirical studies.

In brief, it is possible to state that, due to its complexity, the conceptual and operational evolution of EL is still in development. As being a construct of the social and human sciences, it goes through tensions inherent to the field, making it a “permeable” concept. In other words, EL is characterized by methodological plasticity and a plurality of approaches that make it challenging to reach a consensus on the phenomenon.

Conclusion, Limitations and Future Directions

This paper addressed general aspects of the EL phenomenon in terms of its different theoretical approaches and forms of measurement that favored one or two elements (facets) of the construct. These fragmented perspectives of EL is evidenced in its broader theoretical models that includes different predictors, mediators, moderators, and consequents at individual and contextual levels. We highlight the need to apprehend the phenomenon considering its tripartite structure and dynamical nature.

Taking into account the results of this review, three questions are presented for future investigations that can broaden the understanding of such a complex phenomenon. The first one concerns to the role of moderating variables, such as emotional intelligence, job autonomy, psychological capital, cultural differences, and social support. For example, a recent meta-analysis ( Wang et al., 2019) found that teachers' engagement in EL is likely largely dependent on how they judge their role in their teaching and how they can use it strategically in the classroom. Thus, we suggest investigating deeply whether and how these variables can have impact on the strategy choices, performance, and well-being of the worker. A second and promising research agenda is the study of groups and their influence on the work context. Although still having incipient results, the emotional aspects shared by workers have been shown to be relevant for understanding the use of EL and its consequences (e.g., emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions to leave), suggesting the development of more complex studies that contemplate the multilevel character of the emotions ( Diefendorff et al., 2011; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Li et al., 2019). Third, studies at the momentary, within-episode level of analysis can clarify the influence of interaction partner behavior in emotional changes, emotion regulation, and variables meaningfully related to each other at this level of analysis ( Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015).

It is still relevant to highlight that the adoption of a broader methodological approach should contribute to obtain a less biased image of the phenomenon studied. Most of the findings between EL and other relevant related variables pointed out by the meta-analyses are mostly based on the results of cross-sectional studies, which means that these associations do not explain causal relationships ( Ha et al., 2021). In this sense, future studies could implement either experimental or longitudinal designs to clarify the directional nature of the relationships between EL and potential antecedents, moderators, and consequences. Additionally, the integration of different quantitative and qualitative methodological perspectives in the studies can expand the understanding of EL. For example, employing direct observation to quantify the diversity, duration, intensity, and variety of EL can be useful for comparisons with the demands perceived by the worker ( López-Posada et al., 2018; Morris & Feldman, 1996). Lastly, to improve validity of EL measures, more appropriate protocols could be used to obtain an essential standardization, such as Messick's methodology (1993), which establishes five sources for obtaining evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relationships with other variables, and consequences.

Finally, some relevant limitations must be highlighted. First, the integrative review, despite its methodological validity, still lacks consensus on the procedures for aggregating the results, in addition to the theoretical and methodological challenge of integrating the results of distinct studies that are based on different paradigms. Furthermore, although Torraco’s guidelines (2005) do not explicitly recommend the use of researcher triangulation in the integrative review, it is possible that subjective biases may have occurred in the process of building the synthesis matrix of this review once it was carried out only by the first author. Second, other instruments besides the presented EL measures in this review were developed in the analyzed period. However, we consider them close to the main measures reported here or very specific to the worker's context or occupation. Our choice was to analyze more general measures that could bring greater differentiation to the proposed EL dimensions, which may have caused some loss for this review. Despite these criticisms, the integrative review adopted made it possible to synthetize and critique the panorama of the scientific production on EL in terms of the delimited aspects, making it possible to understand, over time, the systematization of concepts and measures of the construct under analysis

In the coming years, we expect that some of the issues raised in this review will be addressed and resolved, growing scientific consensus regarding the nature and the consequences of EL. The expanding challenges of meeting the demands of a service-oriented economy make it increasingly urgent to advance the understanding of the EL phenomenon. Likewise, events such as the COVID-19 pandemic show us how a disruptive crisis can change the relationships between event characteristics, emotional demands, and EL outcomes in healthcare settings ( Varela Castro et al., 2022), making the readiness workforce to face those emotionally complex situations more critical than ever. By clarifying the work dynamics of the construct, and its model that encompasses antecedents, consequences, mediators, and moderators, it will be possible to establish organizational actions to support workers to keep the balance between growing emotional demands and maintenance of good physical, mental, and psychological health. In fact, workers need more guidance to improve skills in recognizing and understanding their own and others' emotions to manage and make better use of them. By opening new channels for more effective emotion management at work, it will be possible to pave the way to optimize the positive consequences of EL and minimize the negative ones.

References

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional Labor in Service Roles: The Influence of Identity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258824

Aung, N., & Tewogbola, P. (2019). The impact of emotional labor on the health in the workplace: A narrative review of literature from 2013–2018. AIMS Public Health, 6(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2019.3.268

Best, R. G., Downey, R. G., & Jones, R. G. (1997). Incumbent perceptions of emotional work requirements. [Paper presentation]. Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, 12th Annual Conference, St Louis, MO, United States.

Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion, neuroticism, and self-monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.177

Botelho, L. L. R., Cunha, C. C. de A., & Macedo, M. (2011). O método da revisão integrativa nos estudos organizacionais. Gestão e Sociedade, 5(11), 121. https://doi.org/10.21171/ges.v5i11.1220

Briët, M., Näring, G., Brouwers, A., & Droffelaar, A. van. (2005). Emotional labor: Ontwikkeling en validering van de Dutch Questionnaire on Emotional Labor(D-QEL). gedrag en gezondheid, 33(5), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03071091

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647229

Côté, S. (2005). A Social Interaction Model Of The Effects Of Emotion Regulation On Work Strain. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.17293692

Delgado, C., Upton, D., Ranse, K., Furness, T., & Foster, K. (2017). Nurses’ resilience and the emotional labour of nursing work: An integrative review of empirical literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 70, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.02.008

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.001

Diefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A. A., & Dahling, J. J. (2011). Emotional display rules as work unit norms: A multilevel analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021725

Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor process: A control theory perspective . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.230

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.284

Dormann, C., & Kaiser, D. M. (2002). Job conditions and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 257–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320244000166

Edward, K., Hercelinskyj, G., & Giandinoto, J.-A. (2017). Emotional labour in mental health nursing: An integrative systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 26(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12330

Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19, p. 207–282).

Elsbach, K. D., & Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating High‐Impact Literature Reviews: An Argument for ‘Integrative Reviews’. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1277–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12581

Flick, U. (2013). Introdução a Metodologia de Pesquisa. Um guia para iniciantes. (1a. ed.). Penso.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. Em H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Orgs.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (2. ed, Vol. 4, p. 271–340). Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gabriel, A. S., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). Emotional Labor Dynamics: A Momentary Approach. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1804–1825. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1135

Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00038-1

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life (1st. ed.). Doubleday Anchor.

Gracia, E., Ramos, J., & Moliner, C. (2014). El Trabajo Emocional desde una perspectiva clarificadora, tras treinta años de investigación. Universitas Psychologica, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-4.tepc

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678

Grandey, A. A., Diefendorff, J., & Rupp, D. E. (2013). Bringing Emotional Labor into Focus: A Review and Integration of Three Research Lenses. Em A. A. Grandey, J. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Orgs.), Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on the psychology of emotion regulation at work (p. 3–27). Routledge Academic.

Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400

Grandey, A. A., & Melloy, R. C. (2017). The state of the heart: Emotional labor as emotion regulation reviewed and revised. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000067

Ha, D.-J., Park, J.-H., Jung, S.-E., Lee, B., Kim, M.-S., Sim, K.-L., Choi, Y.-H., & Kwon, C.-Y. (2021). The Experience of Emotional Labor and Its Related Factors among Nurses in General Hospital Settings in Republic of Korea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 13(21), 11634. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111634

Hackman, J. K. (1975). On the coming demise of job enrichment. Em E. L. Cass & F. G. Zimmer (Orgs.), Man and work in society. (p. 1–33). Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049

Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (20th anniversary ed). University of California Press. (Original work published 1983)

Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876

Jeung, D.-Y., Kim, C., & Chang, S.-J. (2018). Emotional Labor and Burnout: A Review of the Literature. Yonsei Medical Journal, 59(2), 187. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2018.59.2.187

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Rubenstein, A. L., Long, D. M., Odio, M. A., Buckman, B. R., Zhang, Y., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2013). A Meta-Analytic Structural Model of Dispositonal Affectivity and Emotional Labor. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 47–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12009

Kariou, A., Koutsimani, P., Montgomery, A., & Lainidi, O. (2021). Emotional Labor and Burnout among Teachers: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312760

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974

Klein, M. (2021). Emotional labor in a sales ecosystem: A salesperson-customer interactional framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(4), 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2020-0019

Klopper, R., Lubbe, S., & Rugbeer, H. (2007). The matrix method of literature review. Alternation, 14(1), 262–276.

Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the Dimensions of Emotional Labor: The Heart of Hochschild’s Work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 8–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141002

Lee, L., & Madera, J. M. (2019). A systematic literature review of emotional labor research from the hospitality and tourism literature. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(7), 2808–2826. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0395

Li, Y., Mehmood, K., Zhang, X., & Crossin, C. M. (2019). A Multilevel Study of Leaders’ Emotional Labor on Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction. In Research on Emotion in Organizations (p. 47–67). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120190000015008

López-Posada, L. M., González-Rubio, J., & Blandón-López, A. (2018). Trabajo emocional: Conceptos y características Revisión de literatura. Civilizar, 18(35), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.22518/usergioa/jour/ccsh/2018.2/a08

Mann, S. (1999). Emotion at Work: To What Extent are We Expressing, Suppressing, or Faking It? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398221

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Wax, A. (2012). Moving emotional labor beyond surface and deep acting: A discordance–congruence perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 6–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611417746

Messick, S. (1993). Foundations of validity: Meaning and consequences in psychological assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 1993(2), i–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1993.tb01562.x

Molano, A. S. S. (2018). Trabalho emocional na stand-up comedy: Interação comediante/audiência em duas cidades da América Latina. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Universidade Federal da Bahia.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Emotional Labor. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 986. https://doi.org/10.2307/259161

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing Emotions in the Workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), 257–274.

Näring, G., Briët, M., & Brouwers, A. (2007). Validation of the Dutch Questionnaire for Emotional Labor in teachers and nurses. In P. Richter, Peiro, J.M., & Schaufeli, W.B, Psychosocial resources in health care systems ( https://hdl.handle.net/2066/55982; p. 135–145). Hampp.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021395

Pujol-Cols, L., & Dabos, G. E. (2021). Respuestas diferenciales ante las demandas emocionales del trabajo: Una revisión de la literatura sobre características individuales y trabajo emocional. Estudios Gerenciales, 472–491. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2021.160.4088

Rubin, R., Tardino, V. M. S., Daus, Catherine. S., & Munz, D. C. (2005). A reconceptualization of the emotional labor construct: On the development of an integrated theory of perceived emotional dissonance and emotional labor. In C. E. J. Härtel, W. J. Zerbe, & N. M. Ashkanasy, Emotions in Organizational Behavior (p. 189–211). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611895-22

Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 163–183. 10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(200003)21:2<163::aid-job37>3.0.co;2-l

Scott, B. A., Awasty, N., Johnson, R. E., Matta, F. K., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2020). Origins and Destinations, Distances and Directions: Accounting for the Journey in the Emotion Regulation Process. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 423–446. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0448

Shapoval, V. (2019). Organizational injustice and emotional labor of hotel front-line employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.022

Simões, A. C. A., Gondim, S. M. G., & Puente-Palacios, K. E. (2023). Emotional Labor in Interaction with Patients, Companions, and Coworkers: A Multilevel Approach in a Hospital Context. In Emotions During Times of Disruption (Vol. 18, pp. 93-117). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Stark, K., & Bettini, E. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of emotional display rules in schools: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 104, 103388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103388

Strazdins, L. M. (2000). Integrating Emotions: Multiple Role Measurement of Emotional Work. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530008255366

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Varela Castro, S., Pérez-Chiqués, E., Meza, O., & Campos González, S. A. (2022). Managerial Challenges of Emotional Labor Disruption: The COVID-19 Crisis in Mexico. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X2110607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211060735

Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Taxer, J. L. (2019). Antecedents and Consequences of Teachers’ Emotional Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analytic Investigation. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 663–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09475-3

Watson, M., & Greer, S. (1983). Development of a questionnaire measure of emotional control. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27(4), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(83)90052-1

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Ye, M., & Chen, Y. (2015). A Literature Review on Teachers’ Emotional Labor. Creative Education, 06(20), 2232–2240. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.620230

Yin, H., Huang, S., & Chen, G. (2019). The relationships between teachers’ emotional labor and their burnout and satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review, 28, 100283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100283

Załuski, M., & Makara-Studzińska, M. (2018). Emotional labour in medical professions. Review of literature from the period 2010–2017. Psychiatria i Psychologia Kliniczna, 18(2), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.15557/PiPK.2018.0023

Zapf, D., Kern, M., Tschan, F., Holman, D., & Semmer, N. K. (2021). Emotion Work: A Work Psychology Perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062451

Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion Work as a Source of Stress: The Concept and Development of an Instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398230

Notes

Author notes

¹ Correspondence: about this article should be addressed Ana Célia Araújo Simões: anacsimoes@hotmail.com

Conflict of interest declaration