Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association

2004, Vol. 89, No. 4, 715–721 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.715

RESEARCH REPORTS

Gender Differences: Emotional Expression and Feelings

of Personal Inauthenticity

Patricia A. Simpson and Linda K. Stroh

Loyola University Chicago

This survey study examined the emotional expression content of human resources jobs and how the
content varies by gender. On the basis of findings, it appeared that women more often conform to
feminine display rules, which require the suppression of negative emotions and the simulation of positive
emotions. In contrast, men more often adopted masculine display rules, which require the suppression of
positive emotions and the simulation of negative ones. For both men and women, emotional dissonance
generated by a feminine display-rule pattern was positively correlated with feelings of personal inau-
thenticity at work. Gender modified the relationship between emotional dissonance and gender only in
that women who adopted the masculine display-rule pattern reported feeling the least personally
inauthentic of all.

Emotional labor—the regulation of feelings and expressions for
organizational purposes (Grandey, 1999)— has been discussed for
almost 20 years. As Erickson and Ritter (2001) have observed,
however, most of the studies on this subject focus on employees in
nonprofessional jobs in the service sector or have been qualitative
in nature. This study attempts to rectify these problems by using
time-tested quantitative measures to evaluate the emotional labor
of individuals in professional and managerial jobs.
Our first research goal was to establish whether men and women
report conforming to different display rules at work. Display rules
have been defined as prescriptive social norms, dictating how,
when, and where emotions should be suppressed or expressed. The
content of display rules may conform to racial, ethnic, and gender
stereotypes (Brody, 2000) and appears also to vary as a function of
objective job characteristics (Humphrey, 2000).
Our second research goal was to determine the nature of the
interface among gender, emotional expression, and mental well-
being. The empirical research exploring this relationship has gen-
erated equivocal and contradictory findings (Pugliesi, 1999).
A Gender Division of Emotional Expression and Its
Possible Sources
One of the most consistent findings in the literature is the
correspondence between gender differences in workplace emo-
tional expression and differences in the types of work that men and
women perform in the labor force. Flight attendants, most of
Patricia A. Simpson and Linda K. Stroh, Institute of Human Resources
and Industrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago.
All supplemental data analyses are available from Patricia A. Simpson
and Linda K. Stroh on request.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia
A. Simpson, Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola
University Chicago, 820 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611.
E-mail: psimpso@luc.edu
whom are women, and bill collectors, most of whom are men, offer
an example. Flight attendants, in their interactions with customers,
are routinely expected to suppress negative emotions, such as
anger, in favor of displaying positive emotions, such as enthusiasm
and warmth (Hochschild, 1983). In contrast, bill collectors are
expected to demonstrate negative emotions, such as detachment or
even anger and irritation, when interacting with debtors, while
suppressing positive emotions, such as sympathy (Sutton, 1991).
Similar results have been uncovered in other qualitative studies
(for a review, see Steinberg, 1999).
Not coincidentally, these display-rule patterns complement gen-
dered norms of emotional expression that have been repeatedly
associated with North American and many European cultures
(Brody, 2000). Arguably because of their adverse impact on social
relationships, the expression of anger and aggression are generally
seen as acceptable for men but not for women (e.g., Crick, 1997;
Hart, De Wolf, & Burts, 1993). Conversely, emotions that facili-
tate social relationships, such as warmth and cheerfulness, are
typically regarded as appropriate for women (e.g., Eder & Parker,
1987; Graham, Gentry, & Green, 1981), whereas the expression of
positive emotions is thought to be less desirable for men (e.g.,
Brody, 1997, 1999).
On the face of it, gendered emotional expression norms seem to
be linked to the labor market allocation process. Certainly re-
searchers have argued that the perceived match between a job
candidate’s gender-appropriate forms of emotional regulation and
the objective emotional labor requirements of a particular job exert
a strong influence on the selection process (e.g., Arvey, Renz, &
Watson, 1998; Grandey & Brauburger, 2002). Thus, what might be
called a feminine display-rule pattern conforms well to the emo-
tional labor requirements identified with jobs in which women
predominate, whereas a masculine display-rule pattern conforms
well to the requirements associated with many jobs in which men
predominate.
Complicating our understanding of the relationship between
gender and emotional labor is evidence indicating that women and

715
716 RESEARCH REPORTS
men also demonstrate different patterns of emotional expression
even within the same jobs (Leidner, 1991, 1993; Rafaeli, 1989;
Wichroski, 1994). In a study of store clerks, for example, Rafaeli
(1989) found that the female clerks displayed higher levels of
positive emotions to customers than did the male clerks.
The issue of within-job variability in emotional expression
raises an interesting question. Namely, it casts doubt on the value
of conceptualizing emotional expression at work purely in terms of
fixed and objective characteristics of jobs. Instead, emotional
expression may be a fluid and subjective phenomenon that varies
considerably on the basis of assumptions about gender-appropriate
behavior held either by job incumbents (e.g., Putnam & Mumby,
1993; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991) or by their coworkers and customers
(e.g., Rafaeli, 1989; Smith-Lovin, 1990). To the extent that these
influences directly impact emotional expression, the whole notion
of emotional labor may be thrown into question. After all, emo-
tional labor requires emotional regulation that brings rewards to a
business organization through productivity enhancement (Diefen-
dorff & Richard, 2003), therefore it is not clear that the concept
can accommodate workplace behavior that operates independently
of (and perhaps even at odds with) this process.
The data confirming a gender division of emotional expression
and generating a debate about possible sources of that division
derive almost exclusively from studies of workers in low- to
midlevel service work. Analysis of professional and managerial
employees has been exceedingly rare (Erickson & Ritter, 2001).
On the basis of the existing literature, however, we predict that a
similar gender division in emotional expression exists among
professional and managerial employees.
Hypothesis 1: Women in professional and management jobs
will report more often suppressing negative feelings and
displaying positive feelings than men in professional and
management jobs will report.
Hypothesis 2: Men in professional and management jobs will
report more often suppressing positive feelings and display-
ing negative feelings than women in professional and man-
agement jobs will report.
We also draw upon the previous literature in anticipating that at
least some portion of the gender division in emotional expression
will be a function of job effects and therefore will be linked to
differential job allocation by gender. Our specific hypothesis is as
follows:
Hypothesis 3: Differences in how male and female managers
and professionals assess the emotional labor requirements of
their jobs will correspond with differences in the type of work
undertaken by male and female managers and professionals.
Emotional Dissonance: The Link Between Emotional
Labor and Worker Well-Being
Another line of research that has received a great deal of
attention is the relationship between emotional labor and workers’
mental and physical health (Adelmann, 1989; Erickson, 1991;
Grandey, 2003; Hochschild, 1983). On the one hand, case-study
research suggests that emotional labor adversely affects employee
well-being and leads to job stress, burnout, and feelings of per-
sonal inauthenticity (Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Pierce,
1995). On the other hand, quantitative studies have not been able
to confirm a direct correlation between emotional labor and job
burnout (Wharton, 1993). Further, the quantitative literature has
demonstrated that job characteristics may be more determinative
than emotional labor of adverse effects on employees (Erickson &
Wharton, 1997; Parkinson, 1991).
Contradictory results may be explained by the fact that research-
ers have often focused on different outcomes and different ap-
proaches to measuring dependent variables. We offer another
possible explanation for these equivocal results. In operationaliz-
ing emotional labor, most of the previous studies used discrete
measures to capture the incidence of either suppressing felt emo-
tion or displaying unfelt emotion. Harking back to a concept first
introduced by Hochschild (1983), we suggest that the critical
dimension linking emotional labor to worker well-being is emo-
tional dissonance. Hochschild defined emotional dissonance as the
separation of felt emotion from emotion expressed to meet external
expectations. She argued that the effort to maintain a “difference in
feeling and feigning over the long run leads to strain” (p. 90),
ultimately posing threats to the physical and psychological well-
being of employees.
Morris and Feldman (1997) offered a further refinement of the
emotional dissonance concept. They argued that emotional disso-
nance is linked to adverse outcomes for employees in which the
emotional regulation pattern requires not just the simultaneous
suppression and display of different emotions but also the simul-
taneous suppression and display of conflicting emotions. The
illustrative example of their concept of emotional dissonance in-
volved a situation in which an employee had to show positive
emotion to angry customers when the employee’s real feelings
would have dictated a reciprocal expression of anger.
Although Morris and Feldman’s (1997) conceptualization of
emotional dissonance is a bit vague, positive and negative emo-
tional responses have been correlated with different neuropsycho-
logical and behavioral activation systems (Davidson, 1994, 1995;
Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999; Tomarken, Davidson, Wheeler,
& Doss, 1992). Because they may trigger wholly or partly different
cognitive and physiological processes, opposed suppression and
display requirements across the domains of positive and negative
emotions are arguably a critical factor affecting employee
well-being.
Previous quantitative studies of emotional dissonance have un-
fortunately incorporated problematic measures of this construct.
Zerbe (2000), for example, calculated emotional dissonance as the
measured difference between a respondent’s score on an index
capturing expected displays of pleasurable emotions and the score
on an index capturing actually felt pleasurable emotions. This
approach is insufficient because it focuses on the contrast between
actually felt and expected displays of emotions within the same
broad affective category rather than concurrent demands to sup-
press and display opposed combinations of positive and negative
emotions.
Such flaws warrant revisiting the relationship between emo-
tional dissonance and worker well-being. In the present study we
elect to focus on the relationship between emotional dissonance
and feelings of inauthenticity at work. As noted earlier, inauthen-
ticity has been identified as one possible type of negative outcome
in the previous literature. Further, select studies have demonstrated
that inauthenticity functions as an antecedent to stress, depression,
and job dissatisfaction (Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Parkinson,
 RESEARCH REPORTS
1991; Sutton, 1991). In line with Hochschild’s (1983) original
formulation, we also offer the following hypothesis regarding the
relationship between the two variables:
Hypothesis 4: Emotional dissonance is positively related to
feelings of inauthenticity at work.
Gender as a Moderator of the Effects of Emotional
Dissonance
Finally, we expect that premarket socialization processes oper-
ate to make women more vulnerable to the effects of emotional
dissonance. In addition to the contrasting feminine and masculine
display rule-patterns described previously, researchers have also
uncovered differential norms regarding emotional expressiveness.
Emotional expressiveness refers to the degree to which actually
felt emotions are communicated in interpersonal interactions
(Ganong & Coleman, 1985). Research on emotional expressive-
ness has demonstrated that being female is associated with the
unconstrained communication of actually felt emotions to others.
In contrast, being male is associated with the ability to hide
experienced emotions from others and feign alternative emotional
states (e.g., Ashmore, Del Boca, & Wohlers, 1986; Fabes &
Martin, 1991).
The coexistence of gendered norms about emotional expressive-
ness and content-specific display rules puts women into a double
bind that potentially exaggerates the negative impact of emotional
labor. As we argued earlier, both men and women may experience
adverse effects when they engage in emotionally dissonant behav-
iors. Yet the adverse effects are potentially exaggerated for women
because when they suppress actually felt emotion or simulate an
unfelt emotion, they are contradicting a social identity linked to
forthright and open communication of emotional states. Previous
research has demonstrated that adverse psychological effects can
occur when individuals’ identity confirmation is threatened as a
result of behaving in a manner that contradicts a salient social
identity (Cropanzano, Weiss, & Elias, in press; Weick, 1995).
Relatedly, there is some empirical evidence to indicate that women
experience greater levels of stress when they cannot express gen-
uinely held feelings (Pugliesi & Shook, 1997). Consequently, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5: Women will report comparatively higher levels
of inauthenticity than will men in response to performing
emotionally dissonant labor.
Method
Sample
Data for this study were derived from a survey of all graduates of a
master’s program in human resources at a major university in the Midwest.
This survey included sections covering demographic characteristics, type
of work, rank in the organizational hierarchy, job characteristics, number of
subordinates, emotional-expression requirements, and feelings of personal
inauthenticity. Respondents were told that the study was designed to
examine the current status of human resources professionals within busi-
ness organizations. Surveys were mailed to 1,000 currently employed
alumni. A total of 303 surveys were returned, representing a response rate
of approximately 30%. The sample was 49.7% women and 51.3% men.
The average age was 45.4 years (SD ⫽ 12.43). Respondents had an average
tenure of 15.3 years’ experience (SD ⫽ 10.28). Sixty-five percent of the
717
sample worked in the subfield of human resources; 35% worked in indus-
trial relations.1
Variables
Emotional expression measures. The core source for our emotional
labor measures was the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS)
developed by Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000). JAWS
represents a context-specific means of measuring affect and covers 20
emotions experienced at work: angry, anxious, at ease, bored, calm, con-
tent, depressed, discouraged, disgusted, ecstatic, energetic, enthusiastic,
excited, fatigued, frightened, furious, gloomy, inspired, relaxed, and satis-
fied. JAWS is based on Russell’s (1980) circumplex model of emotion that
categorizes affect on the basis of two bipolar dimensions, namely pleasure
and arousal.
Respondents were asked to self-report the extent to which they were
required to cover up each emotion while they were at work (emotional
suppression) and the extent to which they were required to pretend they
have the emotion (emotional display). Respondents indicated their answers
on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ⫽ never to 5 ⫽ every day.
Factor analysis was then used to group the emotions we measured.
Conducted separately for the emotional suppression and the emotional
display items, each varimax rotation analysis extracted three factors. The
first factor, which we labeled positive emotions, contained at ease, calm,
content, ecstatic, energetic, enthusiastic, excited, inspired, relaxed, and
satisfied (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .96; eigenvalue ⫽ 7.69).2 The second factor,
negative emotions, contained angry, anxious, depressed, discouraged, dis-
gusted, fatigued, frightened, furious, and gloomy (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .90;
eigenvalue ⫽ 5.23). The third factor referred only to the emotional state of
boredom. Because boredom appears to be independent of the emotions that
fit easily into positive and negative categories, we decided not to subject
this factor to further analysis. Further supplemental series of equimax,
quartermax, and varimax rotation analyses (with eigenvalue thresholds
greater than 1 and less than 1) yielded similar results.
Once we had identified factors, we measured total scores across the
positive and negative emotion indices for both the suppression of emotion
and the display of emotion. That is, we developed four total scores.
Suppress positive referred to the total score associated with suppressing
positive emotions. Suppress negative referred to the total score associated
with suppressing negative emotions. Display positive referred to the total
score associated with displaying positive emotions. Display negative re-
ferred to the total score associated with displaying negative emotions.
Emotional dissonance measures. We created two distinct emotional
dissonance measures because we wanted to capture the discrete effects of
the feminine and masculine display rule patterns separately. To assess the
emotional dissonance generated by the feminine display rule pattern, we
summed the standardized score values for the suppress negative variable
and for the display positive variable. This new variable was labeled
Dissonance Type 1. To assess the emotional dissonance generated by the
masculine display rule pattern, we summed the standardized scores for the
suppress positive variable and for the display negative variable. This new
variable was labeled Dissonance Type 2. This measurement approach
1
The demographic data for our respondent sample were comparable to
demographic data obtained from alumni salary surveys conducted in 1989 –
1990 (48.4% men, 50.1% women; mean age 41 years; mean experience 13
years; 62% in human resources subfield, 38% in industrial relations). The
similarity in demographic attributes across the surveys suggests that the
potentially reactive content of our study did not lead to sample selection
bias.
2
Although our inclusion of calm within our roster of positive emotions
runs counter to the recent work of Tellegen et al. (1999), these researchers
also observed that the confirmatory factor analysis values derived for the
emotions calm, relaxed, and placid are borderline enough to put their
approach of classifying them as negative emotions into question.
718 RESEARCH REPORTS

represents an improvement over past approaches to capturing emotional

14

—
dissonance.
Dissonance Type 1 had a mean of – 0.05 and ranged in value from –2.87

.140*
13

—
to 4.86. Dissonance Type 2 had a mean of – 0.09 and ranged in value from
–1.61 to –7.27. Thus, the mean values for both variables suggest that for
this sample, the level of emotional dissonance resulting from both display

.484*
.270*
rule patterns is actually somewhat closer to the minimum end of the range

12

—
than to the maximum end of the range.
Inauthenticity. Inauthenticity at work was measured by incorporating

.097
.095
.118
two items borrowed from a 6-item scale developed by Erickson and Ritter

11

—
(2001). The associated 5-point scale had extreme anchors of 1 (never)
and 5 (every day). The alpha reliability for our inauthenticity scale was .73.

.645*
.124*

.313*
Gender. Gender was measured with a dummy variable coded 1 for

.109
10

—
women or 0 for men.
Type of work. To control for the effects of job allocation, respondents

.203*

.655*
.649*
were asked to classify their jobs into the subfield of either human resources

.090

.097
—
9
(1) or industrial relations (0). On the basis of a similar self-report measure,
we also created a series of functional category variables: (a) administration,
(b) human relations, and (c) strategic. These were dummy variables; the

⫺.186*
⫺.135*

.138*
⫺.154*
.070

.104
—
reference category was other. The administration category included task-

8
oriented activities such as administering compensation and benefits pro-
grams. The human relations category included activities such as equal
opportunity employment, performance assessment, and conflict resolution.

⫺.185*
.127*
.657*
.781*
.253*
.161*
.713*
—
The strategic category included activities involving the assessment of how

7
the use and development of human resources contribute to achieving
overall organizational goals and business strategies.

.240*
.138*
.757*
.136*

.862*
.861*
.238*
Control variables. The control variables included autonomy, task com-

.116
—
plexity, task identity, task significance, and feedback. An example of an 6
autonomy item is “I decide on my own how to go about doing the work.”
Response choices ranged from 1 (very inaccurate) to 7 (very accurate) on

.283*

.199*
.346*
.012

⫺.427
.005

.018
⫺.002
.074
—
a 7-point scale. Alpha reliabilities for these scales were .92 (autonomy), .91
5

(task complexity), .82 (task identity), .90 (task significance), and .86
(feedback). Because none of the job characteristic measures was significant
⫺.056

.029

.052
.092
.050
⫺.013
.026
.016
.037
.037
when entered as a discrete variable in preliminary data analyses, we created
—
4

a single multidimensional scale variable representing the average score by

combining the discrete variables and dividing by five. On the basis of the
Job Diagnostic Scale developed by Hackman and Oldham (1975), this
.125*

.146*
.100
.027

.166
⫺.052
.066
.098
.032
.104
.112
—

average score was labeled the Job Diagnostic Scale variable.

3

Because they generally occupy lower status positions in organizational

hierarchies, Hochschild (1983) maintained that women lack what she has
.152*

.122*
defined as a status shield. Their jobs may routinely require them to cover .148*
.038
.078

.034

.075
.036
.018

⫺.003
.061
⫺.059
—
2

up emotions such as anger and irritation, while at the same time they often
bear the brunt of higher-status, often male, coworkers’ emotional outbursts.
To control for the status shield dynamic, we used a continuous variable
⫺.137*

.478*

.308*

.387*
.190*
.036
⫺.072
⫺.036

.075
⫺.016

⫺.014
⫺.096
.440
—

indicating the number of subordinates reporting to a survey respondent.

1

Following Erickson and Ritter (2001), we also controlled for the fre-
quency of interaction with others at work. Social interaction at work has
1.025
1.051
19.370
0.157
10.030

1.693

1.423
0.500
1.260
0.904
0.785
1.130
1.276
0.401

been shown to have positive effects on employee well-being and may also
SD

moderate the effects of emotional labor (Wharton, 1993). Our social

interaction measure was a continuous variable capturing the percentage of
time respondents spent interacting with others while at work.
Note. n ⫽ 303. JDS ⫽ Job Diagnostic Scale.
2.260
5.898
5.760
0.905
14.790

⫺0.046

⫺0.085
0.520
0.090
⫺0.170
2.322
2.357
2.400
1.190

Finally, we controlled for experience by asking respondents how many

M

years they had spent in the workforce. Research has suggested that the
effects of emotional labor may covary with this variable (Erickson &
Ritter, 2001). Table 1 presents basic descriptive data on the variables used
Gender ⫻ Dissonance Type 1
Gender ⫻ Dissonance Type 2
Dissonance Type 1 (suppress

Dissonance Type 2 (suppress

in this study.
negative–display positive)

positive–display negative)
Number of subordinates
Means and Correlations

Data Analysis
Suppress negative
Variable

Suppress positive
Display negative
Display positive

In examining the gender division of labor, we used two series of

Inauthenticity

univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA; SPSS, Version 6.1.27.0). In the

Experience
Interaction

first series, the dependent variables were the four separate emotional
Gender

expression dimensions, namely suppress positive, suppress negative, dis-

* p ⱕ .05.
Table 1

JDS

play positive, display negative, and gender was the independent variable. In
the second series, the subfield and functional category variables were
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

added as covariates.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 719

We used ordinary least squares regression techniques to analyze the Table 3

interface between emotional dissonance and feelings of inauthenticity at Results of Regression With Inauthenticity as Dependent Variable
work. In Model 1 of the regression analysis, the dependent variable,
inauthenticity, was regressed on Dissonance Type 1, Dissonance Type 2, Variable Model 1 Model 2
gender, and a set of controls. In Model 2, two interaction terms, combining
gender and the two emotional dissonance measures, were added to the Dissonance Type 1 (suppress
other independent variables. negative–display positive) 0.33* 0.37*
Dissonance Type 2 (suppress
positive–display negative) ⫺0.07 ⫺0.01
Results JDS ⫺0.14* ⫺0.12*
No. of subordinates ⫺0.01 ⫺0.01
Gender Differences in the Content of Emotional Interaction ⫺0.45 ⫺0.46
Expression Experience 0.01 ⫺0.01
Gender ⫺0.25* ⫺0.30*
Table 2 presents univariate ANOVA results associated with the Gender ⫻ Dissonance Type 1 ⫺0.01
four separate emotional expression dimensions. These results in- Gender ⫻ Dissonance Type 2 ⫺0.18*
Constant 3.66* 3.60*
dicate that there was a significant mean difference across all four R2 0.30 0.33
emotional labor dimensions. For suppressing negative emotions, ⌬R2 0.03*
the means scores for the women were significantly higher than the
mean scores for the men (Mwomen ⫽ 2.45, Mmen ⫽ 2.23, F(1, Note. n ⫽ 303. JDS ⫽ Job Diagnostic Scale.
* p ⱕ .05.
301) ⫽ 5.90, p ⱕ .05). This was also true for displaying positive
emotions (Mwomen ⫽ 2.56, Mmen ⫽ 2.21, F(1, 301) ⫽ 6.92, p ⱕ
.05). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
The opposite was true for the category covering up positive Only the display rule pattern requiring the suppression of negative
emotions (Mwomen ⫽ 2.24, Mmen ⫽ 2.63, F(1, 301) ⫽ 7.22, emotions and the display of positive emotions was positively
p ⱕ .05) and displaying negative emotions (Mwomen ⫽ 1.15, associated with feelings of inauthenticity at work (b ⫽ .33),
Mmen ⫽ 1.27, F(1, 301) ⫽ 4.78, p ⱕ .05). Thus, men are more however. These results provide only partial support for Hypothesis
likely to cover up positive emotions and display negative emotions 4; our expectation was that both forms of emotional dissonance
than are women. This evidence supports Hypothesis 2. would be positively associated with inauthenticity.
In the second ANOVA series, the subfield and functional work
category dummy variables were entered as covariates. In this The Role of Gender
analysis, the F value associated with the gender variable was no
Adding interaction terms combining gender and the emotional
longer significant for three of the emotional-expression dimen-
dissonance variables in Model 2 resulted in a significant change in
sions. The only emotional expression dimension for which a gen-
explanatory power (‚R ⫽ .03; p ⫽ .03). Further, in this model the
der difference persisted was the display of positive emotions
display-rule pattern requiring the simultaneous suppression of neg-
(Mwomen ⫽ 2.54, Mmen ⫽ 2.19, F(1, 291) ⫽ 5.11, p ⱕ .05). These
ative feelings and the expression of positive ones remained posi-
results offer partial support for Hypothesis 3, in which we postu-
tively correlated with the dependent variable (b ⫽ .37). As was the
lated that gender differences in representation patterns within jobs
case in Model 1, the correlation between the main effects gender
would correspond with gender differences in the perceived emo-
variable and inauthenticity (b ⫽ –.30) was negative. Finally, only
tional expression content of work.
one of the interaction terms, the one combining gender and the
masculine display-rule pattern, was associated with inauthenticity,
Emotional Dissonance and Feeling Inauthentic and that association was negative (b ⫽ –.18).
Table 3 reports results for two separate regression analyses. These results suggest that when the effects of the feminine
Model 1 was significant (R2 ⫽ .30, F(6, 296) ⫽ 14.49, p ⫽ .01). display-rule pattern are controlled for, women actually feel more
personally authentic at work than do men. In addition, women who
reported that their jobs require them to adopt a masculine display-
rule pattern seem to be the most likely of all to feel personally
Table 2 authentic. Gender seems to have a moderating effect on the rela-
Results of ANOVA of Emotional Expression Dimensions tionship between emotional dissonance and feelings of inauthen-
Gender with subfield ticity but not in the expected direction and only in association with
and functional category the masculine display-rule pattern. The results fail to confirm
Gender alone of work covariates Hypothesis 5.
Dependent Male Female Male Female
variable M M Fa M M Fb Conclusions

Suppress negative 2.23 2.45 5.90* 2.28 2.42 1.55 Our results suggest that male and female managers conform to
Display positive 2.21 2.56 6.92* 2.19 2.54 5.11* different emotional display patterns. The results also suggest that
Suppress positive 2.63 2.24 7.22* 2.57 2.23 3.18 apart from displays of positive emotions, the gender division of
Display negative 1.27 1.15 4.78* 1.25 1.13 3.16 emotional expression appears to be closely associated with vari-
Note. n ⫽ 303. ANOVA ⫽ analysis of variance.
able patterns of gender representation across jobs. This finding
a
df ⫽ 1, 301. b df ⫽ 1, 291. lends support to the view that job effects have more of a determi-
* p ⱕ .05. native impact on emotional expression at work than do gender
720 RESEARCH REPORTS
effects. The anomalous finding for the displaying positive emo-
tions category does give pause, however. It raises doubts about
whether emotional expression in the workplace should be concep-
tualized purely as a function of objective job characteristics or,
more important, whether all emotional displays at work should be
conceptualized strictly as emotional labor. The results of this study
also indicate that women are no more vulnerable than men to the
negative outcomes associated with emotional labor. Both men and
women appear to feel less personally authentic in the workplace to
the extent that they simultaneously suppress negative emotions and
display positive emotions on the job. However, this finding must
still be weighed against the data indicating that women are re-
quired to conform to this display-rule pattern more often than men.
In this indirect fashion, women as a group would be more suscep-
tible than men to experiencing feelings of inauthenticity at work.
Indeed, in supplemental t test and ANOVA analyses, we found that
women reported experiencing more of this type of emotional
dissonance than men.
Two surprising findings emerged from this study. The first, that
women who reported adopting a masculine display-rule pattern
were least likely to report feelings of inauthenticity, may somehow
be linked to the same attributes (e.g., assertiveness) that account
for these women’s success in male-typed jobs. The second sur-
prising finding, that only the feminine display-rule pattern is
correlated with feelings of inauthenticity, suggests that the rela-
tionship between emotional dissonance and well-being is more
content specific than we initially proposed. This finding comple-
ments the work of Erickson and Ritter (2001), who found that
suppressing negative emotions such as anger is uniquely linked to
feeling inauthentic at work. A related finding came from a sup-
plementary regression analysis that examined the effects of sup-
pression of negative emotions and expression of positive emotions
separately. The former type of emotional labor had the stronger
relationship with inauthenticity. Further research is clearly war-
ranted to replicate our findings and to develop an explanation for
such a relationship.
Limitations and Future Research
One of the strengths of this study is that it used an improved
measure of emotional dissonance. At the heart of our measure is a
recognition that emotional dissonance arises from the simulta-
neous suppression and display of opposed combinations of posi-
tive and negative emotions. However, our measure remains a
global one. It is based on examining the absolute difference be-
tween overall intensity measures for suppressing positive emotions
and displaying negative emotions on the one hand and for sup-
pressing negative emotions and displaying positive emotions on
the other hand. Future efforts should be directed toward the de-
velopment of a more direct measure of discrete instances of
emotional dissonance experienced at work.
Future researchers may also want to include larger numbers of
items on the inauthenticity scale. This might lead to an even higher
reliability coefficient.
The use of self-report measures in this study also raises some
important concerns. The extent to which conforming to display
rules occurs at a conscious or subconscious, even unconscious,
level is open to debate. The possibility that this type of emotional
management may be virtually automatic casts doubt on the effi-
cacy of self-report measures. Further, to the extent that gender
differences may exist in regard to what constitutes emotional
displays, self-report measures are also problematic. Some of the
gender results on the inauthenticity measures in this study may be
confounded by such differences in judgment standards. Neverthe-
less, self-report measures have been used repeatedly in quantitative
studies of emotional labor (Erickson & Ritter, 2001).
Given that our study sample focuses exclusively on human
resources professionals, future researchers should attempt to test
these hypotheses, using populations and samples outside the hu-
man resources field. Individuals attracted to this field and its two
broad functional arenas may have certain personality attributes that
moderate the effects of emotional dissonance in some fashion. We
have already discussed how personality attributes may shed light
on the finding regarding women and the masculine display-rule
pattern. Further studies based on samples drawn from other types
of employees can help clarify the extent to which this study’s
findings are generalizable.
Direct measures of personality attributes should be included in
future emotional labor studies. One important starting point would
be disposition measures. Previous research demonstrates that neg-
ative affectivity is correlated with greater stress, depression, and
somatic complaints at work (Burke, Brief, & George, 1993;
George, 1990). By extension, it is plausible that negative affectiv-
ity might moderate the relationship between emotional labor and
feelings of inauthenticity.
Finally, this study also offers applied contributions. Our find-
ings suggest that organizations need to educate managers about the
potential ill effects associated with a feminine display-rule pattern
and that this problem is of particular importance to female man-
agers who are often concentrated in jobs associated with this
display-rule pattern. Women may also experience more emotional
dissonance to the extent that they report higher requirements to
display positive emotions even when they perform the same work
as men. In this regard, women may suffer from false assumptions
about the relationship between emotional management behaviors
and optimal job performance. These false assumptions might be a
good point to start from in developing strategies designed to help
female managers avoid the negative consequences of emotional
dissonance.
References
Adelmann, P. K. (1989). Emotional labor and employee well-being. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Arvey, R. D., Renz, G. L., & Watson, T. W. (1998). Emotionality and job
performance: Implication for personnel selection. Research in Human
Resource Management, 16, 103–147.
Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Wohlers, A. J. (1986). The social
psychology of female–male relations: A critical analysis of central
concepts. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Brody, L. R. (1997). Beyond stereotypes: Gender and emotion. Journal of
Social Issues, 53, 369 –394.
Brody, L. R. (1999). Gender, emotion, and the family. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional
expression: Display rules, infant temperaments, and differentiation. In
A. Fisher (Ed.), Gender and emotion (pp. 24 – 47). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1993). The role of negative
affectivity in understanding relations between self-reports of stressors
and strains: A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 401– 412.
 RESEARCH REPORTS
Crick, N. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative
forms of aggression: Links to social-psychological adjustment. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 33, 610 – 617.
Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. W., & Elias, S. M. (in press). The impact of
display rules and emotional labor on psychological well-being at work.
In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress
and well being. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Davidson, R. J. (1994). Honoring biology in the study of affective style. In
P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental
questions (pp. 321–328). New York: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, R. J. (1995). Cerebral asymmetry, emotion and affective style.
In R. J. Davidson & K. Hugdahl (Eds.), Brain asymmetry (pp. 361–387).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and conse-
quences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 88, 284 –294.
Eder, D., & Parker, S. (1987). The cultural production and reproduction of
gender: The effect of extracurricular activities on peer group culture.
Sociology of Education, 60, 200 –213.
Erickson, R. J. (1991). When emotion is the product: Self, society, and
(in)authenticity in a postmodern world. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Washington State University, Pullman.
Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inau-
thenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146 –
164.
Erickson, R. J., & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression:
Assessing the consequences of interactive service work. Work and
Occupations, 24, 188 –213.
Fabes, R. A., & Martin, C. L. (1991). Gender and age stereotypes of
emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 532–540.
Ganong, K. G., & Coleman, M. (1985). Sex, sex roles, and emotional
expressiveness. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(3), 405– 411.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116.
Graham, J. W., Gentry, K. W., & Green, J. (1981). Some evidence for the
self-presentational nature of emotional expression. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 7, 467– 474.
Grandey, A. (1999). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to
conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 55(1), 95–110.
Grandey, 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, 4, 86-96.
Grandey, A., & Brauburger, A. (2002). The emotion regulation behind the
customer service smile. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of
emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 260 –294). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diag-
nostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259 –286.
Hart, C. H., De Wolf, M., & Burts, D. (1993). Parental disciplinary
strategies and preschoolers’ play behavior in playground settings. In
C. H. Hart (Ed.), Children in playgrounds (pp. 271–313). Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Humphrey, R. H. (2000). The importance of job characteristics to emo-
tionality displays. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe
(Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp.
236 –249). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
721
Leidner, R. (1991). Serving hamburgers and selling insurance: Gender,
work, and identity in interactive service jobs. Gender & Society, 5,
154 –177.
Leidner, R. (1993). Fast food, fast talk: Service work and the routinization
of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the
workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), 257–274.
Parkinson, B. (1991). Emotional stylists: Strategies of expressive manage-
ment among trainee hairdressers. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 419 – 434.
Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law
firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects of work
stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23(2),
125–154.
Pugliesi, K., & Shook, S. L. (1997). Gender, jobs, and emotional labor in
a complex organization. Social Perspectives on Emotion, 4, 283–316.
Putnam, L., & Mumby, D. (1993). Organizations, emotion and the myth of
rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions and organizations (pp. 36 –
57). London: Sage.
Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role
of supermarket cashiers. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 245–
273.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means
of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collec-
tors. Academy of Management Review, 34, 749 –775.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
Smith-Lovin, L. (1990). Emotion as the confirmation and disconfirmation
of identity: An affect control model. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research
agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 238 –270). Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Steinberg, R. J. (1999). Emotional labor since The Managed Heart. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 8 –26.
Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The
case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245–268.
Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and
hierarchical nature of affect. Psychological Science, 10, 297–303.
Tomarken, A. J., Davidson, R. J., Wheeler, R. E., & Doss, R. C. (1992).
Individual differences in anterior brain asymmetry and fundamental
dimensions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 62, 676 – 687.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000).
Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investi-
gate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 5, 219 –230.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work:
Managing emotions on the job. Work and Occupation, 20, 205–232.
Wichroski, M. A. (1994). The secretary: Invisible labor in the work world
of women. Human Organization, 53, 33– 41.
Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotional dissonance and employee well-being. In
N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the
workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 189 –214). Westport,
CT: Quorum Books.
Received April 16, 2002
Revision received June 26, 2003
Accepted July 2, 2003 䡲