Interpersonal Process of Emotional Labor: The Role of Negative and Positive Customer Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotional labor refers to the process of regulating both feelings and expressions in response to the display rules for promoting organizational goals. Existing literature has provided strong evidence for the impact of emotional labor (i.e., surface acting and deep acting) on service employees’ emotional exhaustion. However, the empirical examination of the mechanisms underlying this association is largely missing from prior research. Drawing on the social interaction model of emotion regulation, this article reported 2 daily diary studies examining the role of customer treatment toward employees in channeling emotional labor's impact on employee emotional well‐being. Specifically, Study 1 measured emotional labor at the between‐person level as habitual emotional regulation strategies used by service employees, and Study 2 measured emotional labor at the within‐person level to capture its fluctuations. Results showed that employees engaging in more surface acting were more likely to receive negative treatment from customers, which in turn increased their negative affect and emotional exhaustion. Further, employees engaging in more deep acting were more likely to receive positive treatment from customers, which in turn increased their positive affect. Implications and limitations of these findings were discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it