Becker2017 PDF

707608
research-article2017
GOMXXX10.1177/1059601117707608Group & Organization ManagementBecker et al.
Article
Group & Organization Management
1–34
Emotional Labor Within © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Teams: Outcomes of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601117707608
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117707608
Individual and Peer journals.sagepub.com/home/gom
Emotional Labor on
Perceived Team Support,
Extra-Role Behaviors,
and Turnover Intentions
William J. Becker1, Russell Cropanzano2,

Phoenix Van Wagoner2, and Ksenia Keplinger2
Abstract
We investigated the relationship of emotional labor to perceived team
support, extra-role behaviors, and turnover intentions. Our primary research
question involved whether the relationships of individual deep acting with
perceived team support and extra-role behaviors were conditional on the
level of peer deep acting in the team. The possibilities were explored in two
field studies. Study 1 sampled 195 students in 47 project teams multiple
times over the course of a semester. Study 2 surveyed 202 nurses and their
supervisors within 35 teams in a hospital. The multilevel results of both
studies showed that the relationships between individual deep acting and
outcome variables were dependent upon the level of peer deep acting in
the team. As expected, individual and peer surface acting had only direct
relationships with the same outcomes. These findings provided general
support for our model and suggested that team-level effects are an important
1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA

2University of Colorado Boulder, USA
Corresponding Author:
William Becker, Department of Management, Virginia Tech, Pamplin Hall, Blacksburg, VA
24061, USA.
Email: beckerwj@vt.edu
2 Group & Organization Management 00(0)
theoretical and practical consideration for understanding emotional labor

within teams and organizations.
Keywords
emotional labor, deep acting, surface acting, team support, turnover
intentions
Positive emotional displays toward coworkers tend to have a number of ben-

efits, such as increasing productive cooperation (Elfenbein, Polzer, &
Ambady, 2007) and promoting more effective work behavior (Grandey,
2003). As a result of these benefits, organizations tend to encourage positive
affect within work teams (Barsade, 2002) by motivating workers to control
their feelings and emotion displays (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015). The process
of managing affect and affective expressions at work has been termed emo-
tional labor (Hochschild, 1983).
Over the last 30 years, much has been learned about the intrapersonal
dynamics of emotional labor (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015). For instance, we
know that there are two general strategies for emotion regulation in the work-
place—individual deep acting and individual surface acting (Grandey, 2003;
Hochschild, 1983). These terms, which were coined by Hochschild (1983),
have been associated with a number of work outcomes. Individual surface
acting is believed to decrease personal well-being of employees, reduce job
satisfaction, increase stress and emotional exhaustion, and lead to work with-
drawal (Grandey, Rupp, & Brice, 2015; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013;
Scott & Barnes, 2011). In contrast, individual deep acting does not harm
employees’ well-being, reduces the likelihood of work withdrawal, and is
positively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job perfor-
mance, and customer satisfaction (Humphrey, Ashforth, & Diefendorff,
2015; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Scott & Barnes, 2011). However,
some empirical studies provide mixed results about the outcomes of indi-
vidual deep acting (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Holman, Chissick, &
Totterdell, 2002).
Historically, research on emotional labor has focused on employees’ inter-
actions with external parties in service industries (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015;
Ozcelik, 2013). However, a more recent stream of research (e.g., Becker &
Cropanzano, 2015; Fisk & Friesen, 2012; Hu & Shi, 2015; Ozcelik, 2013)
suggests that members of the organization—peers and leaders —use emo-
tional regulation in their internal interactions to a similar or even greater
extent than in external interactions with customers, clients, and patients
Becker et al. 3
(Glasø & Einarsen, 2008). Thus far, the few studies that investigate emo-
tional labor among peers indicate that this is a topic that requires further
investigation.
For example, recent findings suggest that leader deep acting has a positive
impact on job satisfaction of their followers in low-quality leader–member
exchanges (Fisk & Friesen, 2012). Similarly, deep acting in teams with higher
deep acting convergence increases job satisfaction and job performance
while decreasing emotional exhaustion (Becker & Cropanzano, 2015). On
the contrary, surface acting by leaders increases emotional exhaustion,
reduces job satisfaction and participation of their followers, and diminishes
leader’s perceived information sharing (Fisk & Friesen, 2012; Hu & Shi,
2015). Surface acting among coworkers has been associated with reduced
peers’ communication satisfaction, increased felt inauthenticity of employ-
ees, increased interaction avoidance behaviors, increased emotional exhaus-
tion, and decreased performance of employees in work groups (Hu & Shi,
2015; Ozcelik, 2013).
In the current study, we focus on intraorganizational relationships and
investigate the concept of peer emotional labor within work teams. Consistent
with previous research, we investigate two broad types of emotional labor
within work teams—surface acting and deep acting (cf. Grandey, 2003;
Hochschild, 1983). We suggest that the outcomes of individual emotional
labor are somewhat contingent upon (a) which type of emotional labor is
exhibited and (b) whether teammates also engage in the same type of emo-
tional labor. Specifically, we argue that employees who engage in deep acting
while also working in teams that have a high level of peer deep acting experi-
ence higher levels of perceived team support and extra-role behaviors.
We contribute to the existing knowledge about emotional labor in organi-
zations in the following ways. First, we follow recent calls urging researchers
to study emotional labor in work groups (Hu & Shi, 2015). Second, we extend
the literature by examining the multilevel effects of deep acting and surface
acting. Consistent with customer-service research, we propose that deep act-
ing can improve worker effectiveness. However, we qualify these earlier
findings by considering the moderating effect of peer deep acting. Third, we
answer Grandey and Gabriel’s (2015) call to investigate the outcomes of
emotional labor beyond job satisfaction and well-being of employees. More
specifically, we demonstrate that the level of peer deep and surface acting has
important implications for perceived team support, turnover intentions, and
extra-role behaviors, such as voice and helping. Our results confirm the need
to integrate social theories of emotion to intraorganizational models of emo-
tional labor—particularly for deep acting.
Emotional Labor Among Individuals Within Teams

It is common in organizational research to describe two general types of emo-
tional labor. Surface acting entails reactive efforts that are inwardly focused
and superficially present an expected emotional display without changing
one’s true underlying feelings (Hochschild, 1983). Deep acting involves pro-
active efforts to produce the emotions people want to portray to be congruent
with perceived emotional display rules (Humphrey et al., 2015; Kammeyer-
Mueller et al., 2013). To do so, people purposely engage in thoughts and
activities to experience desired emotions (Hochschild, 1983). Each type of
acting appears to impact outcomes and behaviors in different ways.
Research suggests that surface acting creates feelings of dissonance and
stress (Bozionelos & Kiamou, 2008; Brotheridge & Lee, 2002) and often leads
to ineffective work behavior (Côté, 2005; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). In con-
trast, deep acting can be beneficial to employees by decreasing the likelihood
of work withdrawal (Scott & Barnes, 2011), increasing job satisfaction, and
improving job performance (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). We argue that
teams provide more than just an arena for individual affective expressions—
positive, neutral, or negative—they also provide social models for emotional
expressions within the team. In other words, deep or surface acting of one team
member is influenced by deep or surface acting of other team members.
In our theoretical model, we propose that four dimensions of emotional
labor emerge in teams: individual deep acting, peer deep acting, individual
surface acting, and peer surface acting. These dimensions of emotional labor
are related to perceptions of team support, extra-role behaviors, and desires
to leave the team (see Figure 1). The two types of surface acting—individual
and peer—are expected to be directly related to these outcomes, while the
two types of deep acting—individual and peer—are expected to exhibit con-
ditional relationships. We provide our conceptual reasoning below as well as
state the formal hypotheses.
Individual and Peer Deep Acting

Genuine emotional displays have been shown to improve interpersonal eval-
uations (Gada, 1999; Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005).
Recent research suggests that individual deep acting does not harm the well-
being of employees, increases positive affect, and reduces the likelihood of
work withdrawal (Humphrey et al., 2015; Scott & Barnes, 2011). In addition,
individual deep acting is positively related to job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, job performance, and customer satisfaction (Kammeyer-
Mueller et al., 2013).
Becker et al. 5
Figure 1. General framework of individual and team emotional labor.
Although deep acting is generally beneficial, research on entrainment sug-

gests an important caveat—an individual’s affect is influenced by its align-
ment with that of his or her work group. This is consistent with the recent
findings about deep acting in teams suggesting that teams with higher deep
acting convergence had beneficial relationships with emotional exhaustion,
job satisfaction, and job performance (Becker & Cropanzano, 2015).
Consequently, we suggest that the relationship of individual deep acting with
other variables is dependent upon the level of peer deep acting in the team.
The interdependence of both types of deep acting could also explain why
some empirical studies provide mixed results about the outcomes of indi-
vidual deep acting (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Holman et al., 2002).
Affective entrainment and shared feeling states. Generally speaking, the posi-
tive feelings that may result from successful deep acting are beneficial for
work attitudes and behavior (cf. Barsky et al., 2011). However, in team set-
tings, it is also important that positive affect is shared among workmates. In
work teams, these communal feelings are likely to develop through a process
of entrainment (Cropanzano, Dasborough, & Weiss, 2017). When people
interact, their behaviors tend to become entrained or coordinated (Lakin, Jef-
feries, Cheng, & Chartrand, 2003), a process that Chartrand and Bargh (1999,
p. 893) have termed the chameleon effect. In this way, individuals who find
themselves in teams where deep acting is common are also likely to increase
their own level of deep acting. Indeed, the chameleon effect is so subtle that
the mimicry is often unconscious (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Study 1).
Emotional contagion is another form of unconscious mimicry that con-

tributes to the nonconscious transfer of emotions and moods of social oth-
ers (Barsade, 2002). We take the position that emotional contagion creates
a momentary similarity between team members. When these individuals
experience the same work stressors (Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss,
2008) and their work schedules become synchronized (Larsen & Kasimatis,
1990), team members become more likely to model the behavior of cowork-
ers and tend to develop common patterns of affective states and displays
(Cropanzano, Dasborough, et al., 2017). Consequently, emotional conta-
gion contributes to entrainment.
In support of this contention, a longitudinal study by Totterdell, Kellet,
Teuchmann, and Briner (1998; Study 1) found that the individual moods of
nurses were correlated with the affective tone of their work teams. Obviously,
all nurses were not aligned to the same degree. Greater alignment led to
greater commitment to the team and to more favorable perceptions of the
team’s warmth, support, fairness, and openness. Similar results were obtained
in a second sample of practicing accountants (Totterdell et al., 1998; Study
2). In a follow-up study, Totterdell (2000) surveyed professional cricket play-
ers and found that individual moods were associated with collective team
mood. Furthermore, this relationship only held for positive affect and not for
negative affect. Greater alignment of positive moods seemed to boost perfor-
mance during cricket matches. The two studies by Totterdell and his col-
leagues suggest that (a) positive feelings tend to align among teammates; (b)
when this occurs, members react more favorable to the group; and (c) there is
an increase in the work effectiveness.
Based upon affective entrainment research (e.g., Totterdell, 2000), we
argue that peer effects of deep acting should be considered. Expressing posi-
tive affect is more beneficial when other team members are also expressing
positive affect (e.g., Totterdell et al., 1998). Therefore, the benefits of deep
acting are maximized when an individual’s deep acting efforts are recipro-
cated by other team members (cf. Becker & Cropanzano, 2015; Chartrand &
Bargh, 1999; Study 2). Stated differently, individual deep acting should be
most advantageous when a high proportion of team members also deep act.
Accordingly, team members tend to receive more support when they express
genuine positive affect (i.e., when they deep act). This is consistent with the
literature showing that positive feelings improve attitudinal judgments (e.g.,
Barsky et al., 2011). However, this relationship is strongest when positive
feelings of a team member are in harmony with those of the team (e.g., Gada,
1999; Grandey et al., 2005).
As deep acting produces genuine emotional expressions, the processes
that produce affective entrainment (mimicry and contagion) should be more
Becker et al. 7
efficient for deep acting than for surface acting (Barsade, 2002; Volmer,
2012). In a similar fashion, entrainment is more prominent between in-group
members (Van Der Schalk et al., 2011). At the same time, entrainment of
deep acting facilitates genuine emotional displays between team members
that reinforce and strengthen the quality of team relationships (Elfenbein
et al., 2007; Walter & Bruch, 2008). Therefore, low levels of peer deep acting
in teams can be indicative of relational issues within the team.
Social exchange theory and deep acting. In two studies, Grandey and col-
leagues (2005) compared the genuine “Duchenne Smile” to false affective
displays. In a laboratory experiment, individuals who displayed a Duchenne
smile were rated as more friendly. In a subsequent field study, genuine emo-
tional expressions increased perceived friendliness by customers. According
to this research, only genuine emotions, unlike misleading affectations,
should foster improved work group relations. Indeed, genuine emotional
expressions that are more readily interpretable reinforce team member rela-
tionships (Elfenbein et al., 2007).
According to social exchange theory, individuals reciprocate the treatment
they receive from others (Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2017).
Over time, favorable interactions generate positive affect (Lawler & Yoon,
1993) and closer social relationships characterized by high levels of support
(Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000; Bishop, Scott, Goldsby, & Cropanzano,
2005). This social support takes a variety of forms such as direct assistance,
emotional support, and attempts to improve the situation. Social exchange
relationships tend to be open-ended whereby the parties do not engage only
in quid pro quo exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Therefore, they
involve a certain amount of vulnerability and risk. Consequently, when
employees find themselves working as part of a team that deep acts, they
have sufficient insight into their coworkers’ feelings to develop supportive
social exchange relationships. Specifically, we expect more support from
teammates as a result of increased deep acting. Together, these effects lead us
to make the following prediction:
Hypothesis 1: Peer deep acting moderates the positive relationship

between individual deep acting and support such that the positive relation-
ship between individual deep acting and perceived team support will be
stronger when peer deep acting is higher.
Extra-role behavior and perceived team support. According to Van Dyne,

Cummings, and Parks (1995), there are five types of extra-role behaviors.
Three types—stewardship, whistle-blowing, and principled organizational
dissent—are prohibitive. That is, an individual exhibits extra-role behavior

by attempting to stop someone from doing something that is perceived as
destructive. More relevant to the present studies are the two types of promo-
tive extra-role behaviors—voice (Study 1) and helping (Study 2). Both seek
to provide constructive assistance to teammates either by listening to new
ideas (voice) or by providing affiliative assistance (helping; Somech &
Drach-Zahavy, 2000; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Social exchange theory suggests that individuals are likely to exert discre-
tionary effort to assist those with whom they share a supportive relationship
(Cropanzano, Anthony, et al., 2017). As we saw previously, deep acting tends
to encourage this kind of support from teammates but only when one’s peers
also deep act (see Hypothesis 1). Perceived team support, in its turn, is
expected to be positively related to promotive extra-role behaviors, as found
by Chen, Eisenberger, Johnson, Sucharski, and Aselage (2009). Following
the lead of Van Dyne and LePine (1998), we emphasize voice and helping
behaviors as two types of extra-role behaviors intended to benefit coworkers.
Taken together, perceived team support should mediate the relationship
between individual deep acting and extra-role behaviors, which is moderated
by peer deep acting. Thus, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 2: The moderated relationship between individual deep acting

and extra-role behaviors toward teammates will be mediated by perceived
team support (first-stage moderated mediation).
In general, people prefer to preserve supportive relationships and with-

draw from unsupportive ones (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). Therefore,
those who perceive that they are in sync with and receive greater support
from teammates, will be less likely to seek to leave their current team or
organization. Turnover intentions reflect one’s desire to leave his or her cur-
rent organization and sever current work relationships. Empirical evidence
suggests that there is a negative relationship between perceived team support
and turnover intentions (Ng & Sorensen, 2008). At the same time, there tends
to be a positive relationship between individual deep acting and perceived
team support moderated by peer deep acting (see Hypothesis 1). Taken
together, perceived team support should mediate the moderated relationship
between individual deep acting and turnover intentions. Thus, we make the
following prediction:
Hypothesis 3: The moderated relationship between individual deep acting

and turnover intentions will be mediated by perceived team support (first-
stage moderated mediation).
Becker et al. 9
Individual and Peer Surface Acting

Surface acting tends to be psychologically taxing (Ashforth & Humphrey,
1993; Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003), have negative consequences for
employees’ personal well-being (Grandey et al., 2015), and lead to work
withdrawal (Scott & Barnes, 2011). In addition, surface acting is associated
with lower levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of stress and exhaus-
tion (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). In the context of peer relationships,
surface acting can be motivated by the willingness of employees to maintain
interpersonal acceptance, obtain valuable resources, and secure desirable out-
comes (Ozcelik, 2013). When employees use surface acting techniques in
their social interactions with peers, they “do so at the expense of their emo-
tional resources and role performance in their work groups.” (Ozcelik, 2013,
p. 303). Moreover, surface acting among peers has a significant influence on
employees’ felt inauthenticity, interaction avoidance behaviors, and peers’
communication satisfaction (Hu & Shi, 2015).
Given these conditions, we do not anticipate that surface acting will pro-
duce affective entrainment. We argue that only deep acting, which involves
genuine emotions, leads to affective entrainment. Surface acting, which
involves superficial expressions, does not have this effect. In other words,
people entrain to the actual feeling states manifested by deep acting and not
to simulated moods manifested by surface acting (e.g., Totterdell, 2000;
Totterdell et al., 1998).
Revisiting social exchange theory. While surface acting, individuals actively

hide their feelings from their coworkers. At worst, group members are acting
in bad faith toward teammates simply to maintain appearances. In general,
surface acting is not conducive for healthy coworker relationships. In support
of this contention, Gross and John (2003) found that individuals who habitu-
ally surface acted received less social support and were less liked. When
masking true feelings, surface acting might lead an employee to be viewed as
hypocritical or duplicitous. Consequently, peers may be reluctant to enter into
a close relationship with an individual whom they do not “really know.”
Rather than positive affective entrainment, we believe that individual surface
acting will have negative consequences on the formation of close interper-
sonal relationships among teammates (Wang, Seibert, & Boles, 2011). Con-
sequently, when employees find themselves working as part of a team that
surface acts, they lack sufficient insight into their coworkers’ feelings to
develop supportive relationships.
These expectations also generalize to peer surface acting. Although some
groups are likely to show evidence of positive surface acting, especially when
the team is new and people are becoming acquainted, this remains an ersatz
behavior. As we have seen, it involves showing emotions that one is not actu-
ally experiencing. As team members perceive emotional expressions as indica-
tors of future behaviors and relationship quality (Elfenbein et al., 2007), high
quality relationships are unlikely to form. Thus, higher levels of peer surface
acting by coworkers will be negatively related to perceived team support:
Hypothesis 4: Individual surface acting will be negatively related to per-

ceived team support.
Hypothesis 5: Peer surface acting will be negatively related to perceived
team support.
We argue that individual surface acting does not interact with peer surface
acting for two reasons. First, surface acting inhibits the accurate recognition
of emotional expression. When an individual and/or peers within a work team
surface act, accurate judgments of positive affect are not possible. As a result,
the alignment of positive emotions across team members becomes ambigu-
ous. Second, surface acting by individuals or peers does not increase the posi-
tive affect experienced by the surface actor(s). In other words, surface acting
does not change the shared experience of positive affect among team mem-
bers. Thus, we argue that the individual surface acting does not depend upon
the level of peer surface acting within a team.
The consequences of diminished social support. When social support is lowered

by individual and peer surface acting, diminished extra-role behavior should
follow (cf. Bishop et al., 2000; Bishop et al., 2005); Social exchange theory
argues that people feel an obligation and a desire to preserve close and sup-
portive relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Conversely, individu-
als will seek to distance themselves from relationships that are unrewarding
and even socially costly. Two studies that investigated the relationship
between emotional labor and turnover intentions found a positive relation-
ship between surface acting and turnover intentions (Bozionelos & Kiamou,
2008; Côté & Morgan, 2002). Consequently, we predict,
Hypothesis 6: There will be an indirect relationship between both the

individual surface acting (6a) and peer surface acting (6b) with extra-
role helping behavior toward teammates through perceived team
support.
Hypothesis 7: There will be an indirect relationship between both the
individual surface acting (7a) and peer surface acting (7b) with turnover
intentions through perceived team support.
Becker et al. 11
In this article, we propose and test the theoretical framework presented in

Figure 1. This posed a number of conceptual challenges including the need
for valid measures (in field research settings), methodological control, and
external validity. Given these concerns, we present the tests of our model in
three steps. First, we introduce a validation check of the survey instruments
utilized to test our hypotheses. We then introduce our first study. In Study 1
we test Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 with a sample of student project teams.
Although the nature of this sample allowed us a great deal of methodological
control, it prevented us from examining predictions pertaining to turnover
intentions (Hypotheses 3 and 7). For that reason, we also conducted a second,
cross-sectional field study of nurse teams, which allowed us to examine the
full set of theoretical predictions.
Pilot Validation Study

Our multistudy research effort presented a number of practical challenges.
Using the student sample in the first study and the constraints imposed by the
hospital manager in our second study made minimizing scale length a prior-
ity. To measure extra-role behaviors, we used voice in Study 1 and helping in
Study 2. We performed a brief validation study of our scales using 304 under-
graduate and MBA students recruited at two southwestern universities. Fifty-
two percent of the participants were male, and all participants were currently
working—90% part-time and 10% full-time.
To assess perceived team support, we used five high loading items from
Bishop et al.’s (2000) seven-item measure. Bishop and his colleagues derived
their scale from Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986),
which has shown sufficient reliability with as few as three items (Eisenberger,
Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Sample item
included the following: “Help is available from my team when I have a prob-
lem.” Apart from this scale, there are other instruments that purport to assess
team support. If, as we expect, the Eisenberger et al.’s scale provides a valid
estimate of the construct of social support, then it should be correlated with
other measures of team support. Agreement among measures that purport to
measure the same construct is called convergent validity (Cronbach & Meehl,
1955). In our pilot study, we investigated convergent validity by collecting
data on two other coworker support scales: the scale developed by Baruch-
Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan, and Schwartz (2002) with a sample item
“My coworkers care about me,” and the scale developed by Susskind,
Kacmar, and Borchgrevink (2003) with a sample item “My coworkers pro-
vide me with the important work-related information and advice that make
performing my job easier.”
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Pilot Validation

Variables.
Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. PTS (Eisenberger, 3.82 .62 (.78)
Huntington, Hutchison,
& Sowa, 1986)
2. PTS (Baruch-Feldman, 3.43 .44 .61** (.73)
Brondolo, Ben-Dayan,
& Schwartz, 2002)
3. PTS (Susskind, Kacmar, 3.58 .67 .42** .56** (.64)
& Borchgrevink, 2003)
4. Voice (Van Dyne & 3.88 .62 .28** .24** .29** (.85)
LePine, 1998)
5. Helping (Van Dyne & 4.01 .57 .36** .43** .37** .56** (.87)
LePine, 1998)
6. OCB-I (Williams & 3.68 .63 .19* .27** .28** .30** .48** (.82)
Anderson, 1991)
7. OCB-I (shortened) 3.71 .70 .19* .28** .29** .21** .43** .90** (.75)
Note. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are provided in the diagonal. PTS = perceived team
support; OCB-I = organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals.
Following Van Dyne and LePine (1998), we measured two aspects of

extra-role behavior—voice and helping. Voice was measured with a six-item
scale from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A sample item included the follow-
ing: “Spoke up and encouraged others in this team to get involved in issues
that affect the team.” To assess helping behavior, we used three measuring
instruments—a full version of Williams and Anderson’s (1991) measure of
interpersonal organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individu-
als (OCB-I) with seven items, a shortened version of this measure with three
items, and a five-item measure of helping developed by Van Dyne and LePine
(1998). The three items were selected because they were high loading and the
hospital managers from Study 2 felt they were most appropriate for the hos-
pital setting. A sample item for Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale
included the following: “Helps others who have heavy workloads.” A sample
item for Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) scale included the following: “I vol-
unteer to do things for this work group.”
Means, standard deviations, alpha reliabilities, and intercorrelations of
the scales are provided in Table 1. The Eisenberger et al.’s five-item scale of
perceived team support was relatively short and had the highest reliability (α
= .78) among the three scales (α = .73 for Baruch-Feldman et al.’s (2002)
scale, α = .64 for Susskind et al.’s (2003) scale). The three scales were
Becker et al. 13
correlated, providing evidence of convergent validity. As shown in Table 1,

the three measures of helping had adequate reliability, though reliability was
a bit lower for the shortened three-item measure (α = .75). Likewise, all
three instruments were correlated. The strongest relationship was between
the shortened measure and the full Williams and Anderson’s (1991) measure
(r = .90, p < .01). These findings support our use of the three-item scale.
Also shown in Table 1, helping and voice were related, reflecting similar
positions of these constructs within the nomological network of prosocial
extra-role behavior (Van Dyne et al., 1995). The pilot data also provide sup-
port for relationships between the helping measures and criterion variables.
In particular, perceived team support was positively associated with voice
(r = .28, p < .01) and both the OCB-I measures (r = .19, p < .05). In sum,
these results support the measures used given the theoretical and practical
constraints of each study.
Study 1
To investigate our proposed relationships in newly formed teams, we obtained
a sample of student project teams from two universities in the southwest
United States. This sample was advantageous because the teams were
observed from formation, interacted frequently, had similar work schedules,
and shared mutual fate dependence over the course of a semester.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were 195 undergraduate students in 47
teams, assessed at multiple points during the semester. The total number of
students participating represented 85% of all students in these teams. A slight
majority (56%) of the sample was male and 98% of the sample was in their
third or higher year of college business education. The strength of this study is
that this was an actual course, and student performance could impact their
grade. However, as this was a real-world setting for the students, there were
ethical concerns with obtaining potentially identifying information, such as
ethnicity. Therefore, we did not collect additional demographic information.
All the students completed an initial survey after the first team meeting at
the beginning of a team project for class which included all the study measures.
Additional surveys that included the same measures were distributed to all stu-
dents approximately every 2 weeks for the duration of the project. A total of 25
teams worked on projects that lasted for 6 weeks and completed four observa-
tions, while 12 teams worked on projects that lasted for less than 2 weeks and
therefore had only one observation. The other 10 teams had two observations
each. Seventy-four percent of students completed more than one survey.
Measures. Unless stated otherwise, measures used a five-point Likert-type

scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Individual
deep and surface acting were assessed via three-item measures developed by
Brotheridge and Lee (2003). The items were framed with regard to a recent
interaction with team members that evoked emotions, and the stem asked
respondents to report the extent to which deep and surface acting behaviors
were performed. A sample item for each included the following: “Made an
effort to actually feel the emotions that I needed to display to others” and
“Pretended to have emotions that I didn’t really have,” respectively.
Peer deep and surface acting were assessed using referent-shifted items of
the deep and surface acting scales. The stem asked respondents to report the
extent to which deep and surface acting behaviors were performed by other
team members (Chan, 1998). Although each individual rated a slightly differ-
ent group of team members, the observations cannot be considered indepen-
dent because of considerable overlap. Therefore, referent-shifted perceptions
of peer emotional labor were aggregated across team members and observa-
tions to provide a measure of peer deep and surface acting for each team. We
computed within team agreement using rwg(j) and a uniform null distribution
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The agreement within teams was quite high
for peer deep acting (average rwg(j) = .89) and surface acting (average rwg(j)
= .90). In each case, only two groups failed to exceed .70. In addition, there
was considerable variance between teams for peer deep acting (32%) and
surface acting (42%). To assess perceived team support, we used the
Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) measure described in the validation study. We
wanted a measure of extra-role behavior that was most relevant to student
project teams. As a result, we selected voice behavior because it is highly
important for dynamic idea-oriented teams. Voice behavior was assessed with
the six-item measure from Van Dyne and LePine (1998).
As a validity check, all these items were subjected to a confirmatory fac-
tor analysis (CFA). As there were six constructs—individual deep acting,
individual surface acting, peer deep acting, peer surface acting, perceived
team support, and voice—we expected that a six-factor model would pro-
vide a strong fit. As shown in Table 2, this proved to be the case. Given that
the models with fewer factors were nested within the six-factor models, we
were able to compare them directly. The best-fitting five-factor model com-
bined all six deep acting items (see Table 3). As expected, the six-factor
model fits significantly better than this alternative—Δχ2(5) = 24, p < .01.
The best-fitting four-factor model consisted of the following dimensions:
all the deep acting items, all surface acting items, perceived team support,
and voice. The six-factor model also fits significantly better than this
model—Δχ2(9) = 163, p < .01. Given the fact that the six-factor model
Becker et al. 15
Table 2. Results of CFA for Study 1.
Model χ2 CFI RMSEA

Six-factor model χ2(215) = 306 0.94 0.05
Five-factor model χ2(220) = 329 0.93 0.05
Four-factor model χ2(224) = 353 0.92 0.06
Three-factor model χ2(227) = 450 0.87 0.07
Two-factor model χ2(229) = 649 0.75 0.10
Single-factor model χ2(230) = 882 0.61 0.13
Note. Results are for Wave 1 data (N = 180). The best-fitting combinations for each lower
factor model are as follows—five factor: all deep acting items; four factor: all deep acting
items and all surface acting items; three factor: all deep acting items, all surface acting items,
and team support/voice items; two factor: all surface acting items and all other items. CFA =
confirmatory factor analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Study 1 Variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Individual SA 2.15 .86 (.85)
2. Individual DA 3.62 .84 −.27** (.85)
3. Peer SA (L3) 2.24 .38 .45** −.25** (.86)
4. Peer DA (L3) 3.51 .37 −.26** .41** −.56** (.85)
5. PTS 4.08 .64 −.45** .38** −.25** .41** (.83)
6. Voice 3.79 .75 −.36** .47** −.30** .39** .58** (.88)
7. Gender (L2) 0.53 .50 .06 .04 .17* −.12 −.04 −.08
Note. Coefficient alpha is provided along the diagonal. Gender was coded as 1 for male. Level
1: N = 518, Level 2: N = 195, Level 3: N = 47. The correlations between variables at different
levels were computed by assigning values down from higher levels and are presented only for
illustrative purposes. SA = surface acting; DA = deep acting; L3 = Level 3; PTS = perceived
team support; L2 = Level 2.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
showed the best overall fit and was consistent with previous theoretical
thinking, it was retained in subsequent analyses.
Plan of Analysis
As described below, gender was treated as an individual-level variable and used
as a control variable in the analyses. We did so because it has been associated
with differences in emotional expression and genuineness (Simpson & Stroh,
2004) and has been shown to be related to deep acting (Wang et al., 2011).
Multilevel analysis. Our data contained a hierarchical structure in which

multiple observations were nested within individuals who were nested
within work teams. In addition, our peer deep acting hypotheses were
nested in nature and involved testing relationships between aggregated
peer variables (Level 3) and individual variables (Level 1). To account for
this, we used multilevel hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). To test the
hypothesized first-stage moderated mediation model of peer deep acting,
we followed the approach outlined by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006)
within the Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang’s (2010) statistical framework.
This allowed us to test the relationship between individual deep acting
and voice behavior through perceived team support at different levels of
peer deep acting.
Our analyses also included gender as a Level 2 control variable.
Consistent with our proposed level of relationships, all Level 3 variables
were grand-mean centered while Level 1 variables were group-mean cen-
tered to render nested variables statistically independent of each other
(Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Gender was not centered because only fixed
effects were included in the analyses.
Results and Discussion

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the Study 1 vari-
ables are provided in Table 3. As we collected repeated measures of teams
from their formation, we were able to test whether entrainment occurred.
This served as a process check for our theoretical model. To do this, we
used a two-level model of observations nested in teams and found that the
average team perceptions of peer deep acting increased over time (γ = .08,
p < .01). Consistent with our theory, there was no evidence of entrainment
for surface acting. Over time, perceptions of peer surface acting actually
decreased (γ = −.09, p < .05).
We also examined entrainment by taking advantage of the fact that all
work groups did not deep act to the same degree. Specifically, our model
predicts that deep acting begets more deep acting. Thus, entrainment should
be higher when deep acting is high and lower when deep acting is low. This
interaction between time and the level of peer deep acting in the team was
significant (γ = −.26, p < .01). Simple slopes analysis showed that the rela-
tionship between time and dispersion was negative in teams with high peer
deep acting but positive in teams with low peer deep acting. That is, teams
that deep acted more also became more alike over time and vice versa. There
were no similar relationships for team surface acting dispersion, suggesting
that affective entrainment did not occur.
Becker et al. 17
Table 4. HLM Results for Study 1.

Perceived team support Voice
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Intercept (γ000) 4.14** (.07) 4.06** (.06) 4.06** (.06) 3.78** (.07) 3.78** (.07)
Level 1
Individual SA (γ100) −.16** (.03) −.16** (.03) −.18** (.04) −.10 (.06) −.04 (.05)
Individual DA (γ 200) .20** (.05) .20** (.05) .17** (.04) .25** (.04) .20** (.04)
PTS (γ300) .30** (.11)
Level 2
Gender (γ010) −.09 (.08) −.04 (.08) −.04 (.08) −.09 (.08) −.09 (.08)
Level 3
Peer SA (γ001) −.32** (.11) −.32** (.11) −.22 (.18) −.22 (.18)
Peer DA (γ002) .30* (.11) .30* (.11) .62** (.18) .62** (.18)
Individual SA × Peer −.12 (.12) −.20 (.15) −.16 (.15)
SA (γ101)
Individual DA × .27** (.09) .12 (.08) .04 (.09)
Peer DA (γ201)
σ2 .17 .16 .16 .22 .20
Pseudo R2 .09 .10 .11 .10 .16
Note. Level 1: N = 518, individual N = 195, team N = 47. Standard error in parentheses. Gender was coded
as 1 for male. HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; SA = surface acting;
DA = deep acting; PTS = perceived team support.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Before testing the multilevel relationships, we first evaluated them at

Level 1. These results are shown in Table 4. It is worth noting that individual
deep acting was positively related to perceived team support (γ = .20, SE =
.05, p < .01), as was peer deep acting (γ = .30, SE = .11, p < .05). Although
consistent with our model, we caution that these two direct relationships were
less central to our theory, which emphasizes the interaction of individual
deep acting and peer deep acting.
Deep acting. Following the paths of our theoretical model, we tested the pre-
dictions for deep acting (see Model 3 of Table 4). Consistent with Hypothesis
1, the interaction between individual deep acting and peer deep acting was
significantly related to perceived team support (γ = .27, SE = .09, p < .01). We
plotted these relationships in Figure 2 and performed simple slopes tests fol-
lowing Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s (2006) guidelines. Simple slopes
results indicated that the relationship between individual deep acting and per-
ceived team support was positive and significant when peer deep acting was
high (t = 7.54, p < .01). Region of significance analysis indicated that this was
Figure 2. Moderating effect of peer deep acting on the relationship between
individual deep acting and perceived team support.
Note. DA = deep acting.
true for all values >.2 below the mean level of peer deep acting. When peer
deep acting was low (<.2 below the mean), the relationship between indi-
vidual deep acting and perceived team support was not significant (t = 1.39,
ns). Therefore, the relationship between individual deep and perceived team
support was stronger when peer deep acting was high than when it was low.
To test Hypothesis 2, we used the multilevel method outlined by Bauer
et al. (2006) and examined the conditional indirect relationship between indi-
vidual deep acting and voice through perceived team support when peer deep
acting was high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD). Results indicated that this indirect
relationship was positive when peer deep acting was high (estimate = .25, SE
= .06, p < .01) and at the mean (estimate = .13, SE = .03, p < .01) but was not
significantly different from zero when peer deep acting was low (estimate =
.04, SE = .03, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Surface acting. Model 1 of Table 4 indicated that individual surface acting was
negatively related to perceived team support (γ = −.16, SE = .03, p < .01), and
Model 2 showed that peer surface acting was also negatively related to per-
ceived team support (γ = −.32, SE = .11, p < .01). These results provided support
for Hypotheses 4 and 5. As expected, there was no significant interaction
between individual surface acting and peer surface acting. Although consistent
with our model, we are cautious about drawing conclusions from null results.
Becker et al. 19
According to our theoretical framework, both individual surface acting

(Hypothesis 6a) and peer surface acting (Hypothesis 6b) should be indirectly
related to voice behavior through perceived team support. To examine
Hypothesis 6, we first tested a model of voice behavior that did not include
perceived team support. Next, we included perceived team support into
Model 5 of Table 4. As expected, perceived team support was positively asso-
ciated with voice (γ = .30, SE = .11, p < .01) such that students exercised
voice more when they felt that they were supported by their peers. Next, we
investigated whether individual and peer surface acting had indirect effects
on voice through perceived team support. For individual and peer surface
acting, we used Tofighi and MacKinnon’s (2011) distribution-of-products
method using RMediation to estimate a 95% confidence interval (CI) around
the estimate of each indirect effect. The results indicated that the indirect
effects of individual surface acting (95% CI = −.11, −.03) and peer surface
acting (95% CI = −.27, −.06) on voice behavior through perceived team sup-
port were significant. Therefore, Hypotheses 6a and 6b were supported.
Conclusion
The findings for Study 1 provided general support for theoretical predictions.
Nonetheless, there were also some important limitations. First, Study 1 only
examined college students in the educational context. For external validity
reasons, it was important to replicate these results among working adults.
Second, the setting in Study 1 did not allow us to test the hypotheses pertain-
ing to turnover intentions because students could not leave their teams.
Study 2
To test our proposed relationships in existing work teams, we obtained a sam-
ple of nurse teams from a large veteran’s hospital in the southwest United
States. This sample was appropriate because nursing teams have high inter-
dependence and the routine activities in nursing are emotionally demanding
(Bolton, 2000).
Method
Participants and procedure. The focal sample consisted of 325 direct-care nurses
who were organized into 35 stable work teams based upon the functional unit
(emergency room, intensive care, outpatient clinic, etc.) and shift (days or
nights) in which they worked. Individual meetings were held in the workplace
to introduce the study and administer surveys. The final sample consisted of
202 nurses (62% of nurses employed at the hospital). Most of the participants
were female (85%). The average age was 44.16 years (SD = 11.71). Nurses
averaged 14.02 (SD = 11.61) years of experience and have been members of
their current teams for an average of 3.19 years (SD = 2.40). Beyond these
basic demographics, the hospital was concerned that personal information
would compromise the confidentiality of the survey. For each nurse in the sam-
ple, an immediate supervisor completed an evaluation of helping behaviors.
Measures. Unless stated otherwise, measures used a five-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Individual surface act-
ing was assessed with two items and individual deep acting was assessed with
four items developed by Grandey, Dickter, and Sin (2004). The items were
framed with regard to recent experiences with a team member. A surface acting
sample item included the following: “I faked my feelings.” A deep acting sam-
ple item included the following: “I tried to look at the positive side of things to
change how I felt.” These measures were used in this sample because the hospi-
tal manager was more comfortable with the wording of these items.
Due to the constraints on survey length, we did not include referent-shifted
items. Therefore, peer deep and surface acting were operationalized follow-
ing a direct-consensus composition framework and aggregating the individ-
ual deep and surface acting scores across teams without including the focal
individual (Chan, 1998). Although it would have been preferable to use the
same composition in both studies, recent meta-analysis suggests that both
produce consistent findings with relatively modest differences (Wallace
et al., 2016). Within team agreement was lower than in Study 1 for peer deep
acting (average rWG(J) = .78) and surface acting (average rWG(J) = .69) which
was just below the threshold of .70. There were six and eight teams below .70
for deep and surface acting, respectively. This was expected due to the fact
that some team members were anticipated to be out of step with their team
members. In addition, there was considerable variance between teams for
deep acting (26%) and surface acting (29%). Therefore, we concluded that
there was sufficient evidence to aggregate our measure of peer deep acting.
We used the same Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) scale to assess perceived team
support as in the pilot study and Study 1. Turnover intentions were assessed
with a three-item measure from Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, and Toth
(1997). A sample item was as follows: “I would leave this hospital if an oppor-
tunity were available to join another hospital.” In interdependent, task-oriented
teams, extra-role helping behaviors tend to be more prominent than voice
behaviors which are more important for idea-based teams (Van Dyne & LePine,
1998). Therefore, we assessed helping behaviors that benefited coworkers
using ratings from immediate supervisors. We used a three-item measure taken
Becker et al. 21
Table 5. Results of CFA for Study 2.
Model χ2 CFI RMSEA

Five-factor model χ2(109) = 201 0.94 0.06
Four-factor model χ2(113) = 263 0.91 0.08
Three-factor model χ2(116) = 613 0.70 0.14
Two-factor model χ2(118) = 801 0.59 0.17
Single-factor model χ2(119) = 1239 0.33 0.21
Note. N = 210. The best-fitting combinations for each lower factor model are as follows—four
factor: all deep and surface acting items, three factor: all deep and surface acting items and
OCB and turnover intention items, two factor: all deep and surface acting items and all other
items. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors.
from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCB-I scale and validated in the pilot
study. These three items were selected with the help of the head of nursing
because they were most relevant to the hospital setting. A sample item included
the following: “Helps others who have heavy workloads.”
Plan of Analysis
We did not control for gender as in Study 1 because the nursing sample was
overwhelmingly female. We controlled for organizational tenure because
previous research has demonstrated a relationship between organizational
tenure and turnover intentions (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). As peer
deep and surface acting were aggregated without including the respondent,
each team member had a slightly different value. Accordingly, it was not pos-
sible to perform the same multilevel analyses as in Study 1 because peer deep
and surface acting were now Level 1 variables. However, we continued to use
HLM to account for the fact that responses were nested within teams.
Results and Discussion

Once again, we performed CFA of the measurement model for the survey
data before aggregating our measures. Once again, the predicted five-factor
model fits the data well (comparative fit index [CFI] = .94, root mean square
error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, χ2(109) = 201). The fit of the five-
factor model was better than the best-fitting four-factor model—Δχ2(4) = 62,
p < .01—or any other item combination. The details of this analysis are pre-
sented in Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
the Study 2 variables are provided in Table 6. For Study 2, we proceeded
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Study 2 Variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Individual SA 3.11 .89 (.64)
2. Individual DA 3.75 .81 .43** (.80)
3. Peer SA 3.11 .51 .27** .16*
4. Peer DA 3.75 .45 .17* .20** .52**
5. PTS 3.60 .73 −.38** −.04 −.15* .02 (.86)
6. Helping 3.80 .79 .01 .02 −.01 −.03 .09 (.83)
7. Turnover Intentions 2.01 .90 .14* −.03 .06 −.01 −.29** −.19** (.81)
8. Tenure 5.65 5.81 .02 −.02 .03 −.09 .03 .02 −.03
Note. Mean and SD are provided at the individual level. In addition, individual-level internal
consistency reliabilities are provided along the diagonal. Internal consistency is estimated with the
coefficient alpha in all cases except for individual surface acting. As we used a two-item measure,
we followed the advice of Eisinga, Grotenhuis, and Pelzer (2013) and used the Spearman–Brown
Prophecy Formula. SA = surface acting; DA = deep acting; PTS = perceived team support.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 7. HLM Results for Study 2.

PTS Helping Turnover intention
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Intercept 3.63** (.07) 3.89** (.10) 3.89** (.10) 2.03** (.06) 2.02** (.05)
Tenure .01 (.01) .00 (.01) .00 (.01) −.01 (.01) −.01 (.01)
Individual SA −.38** (.06) −.02 (.06) −.02 (.07) .21** (.06) .09 (.09)
Individual DA .14* (.07) .06 (.05) .06 (.05) −.17† (.10) −.12 (.11)
Peer SA −.48** (.14) −.11 (.16) −.10 (.16) .26 (.17) .10 (.17)
Peer DA .32† (.18) .05 (.19) .04 (.19) −.23 (.17) −.12 (.14)
Individual DA × Peer DA .25* (.12) .23* (.10) .22* (.09) −.33† (.19) −.25 (.22)
Individual SA × Peer SA −.08 (.08) −.11 (.09) −.10 (.09) .13 (.12) .10 (.12)
PTS .02 (.08) −.31** (.08)
σ2 .39 .34 .34 .79 .76
Pseudo R2 .16 .03 .03 .02 .07
Note. Level 1: N = 202, Level 2: N = 35. Standard error in parentheses. HLM = hierarchical linear modeling;
PTS = perceived team support; SA = surface acting; DA = deep acting.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
directly to testing models that included individual and peer variables as well
as the interaction between individual deep acting and peer deep acting. The
results of the data analysis are presented in Table 7.
Deep acting. Similar to Study 1, the interaction term between individual

deep acting and peer deep acting predicted perceived team support among
Becker et al. 23
individual deep acting and perceived team support.
Note. DA = deep acting.
working nurses (γ = .25, SE = .12, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was

once again supported. Figure 3 depicts this relationship graphically. Simple
slopes tests indicated that the relationship between individual deep acting
and perceived team support was positive and significant when peer deep act-
ing was high (t = 2.77, p < .01). Region of significance analysis indicated
that this was true for all values above the mean level of peer deep acting.
This relationship was not significant when peer deep acting was low (all
values below the mean, t = .14, ns). Therefore, the relationship between
individual deep and perceived team support was stronger when peer deep
acting was high than when it was low.
In contrast to Study 1, perceived team support was not related to helping
(see Model 3 of Table 7). As a result, the indirect effect of individual deep
acting on helping through perceived team support was not significant at high
(95% CI = −.03, .05) or low (95% CI = −.07, .01). The indirect effects of
individual (95% CI = −.08, .05) and peer (95% CI = −.10, .06) surface acting
on helping through perceived team support were also not significant.
Consequently, the mediation predictions (Hypotheses 3 and 6) were not sup-
ported. Because our predicted relationships were not found, we tested the
conditional relationships between individual and peer deep acting with help-
ing. Model 2 of Table 7 indicates that the interaction term between individual
deep acting and peer deep acting was significant (γ = .23, p < .05). Figure 4
depicts this relationship graphically. Simple slopes tests indicated that the
individual deep acting and helping.
Note. DA = deep acting; PTS = perceived team support.
relationship between individual deep acting and helping behavior was posi-
tive and significant when peer deep acting was high (t = 2.01, p < .05) and
negative when peer deep acting was very low (2 SD below mean, t = 2.00, p
< .05). Consequently, we found some support for the conditional relation-
ships between individual and peer deep acting with helping, though this rela-
tionship was not mediated by perceived team support.
Model 5 of Table 7 suggested that perceived team support was significantly
related to turnover intentions (γ = −.31, p < .01). Moreover, no other relation-
ships were significant when perceived team support was included in the
model. This is consistent with Figure 1, which posits that perceived team sup-
port acts as a mediator. Because Hypothesis 3 predicted moderated mediation,
we used bootstrap methods to test the indirect paths with a Level 1 moderator.
As predicted, we found that the indirect relationship between individual deep
acting and turnover intentions through perceived team support was negative
and significant when peer deep acting was high (95% CI = −.17, −.02) and was
not significantly different from zero when peer deep acting was low.
Surface acting. As shown in Model 1 of Table 7, individual surface acting (γ =

−.38, p < .01) and peer surface acting (γ = −.48, p < .01) were negatively related
to perceived team support. These results replicated Study 1 and provided sup-
port for Hypotheses 4 and 5, respectively. As in Study 1, there was no significant
Becker et al. 25
interaction between individual surface acting and peer surface acting. As noted
above, perceived team support was not related to helping behavior. Thus,
Hypothesis 6 was not supported. In addition, Model 2 of Table 7 indicated that
neither individual surface acting nor peer surface acting was directly related to
helping behavior. We predicted that individual and peer surface acting would be
indirectly related to turnover intentions through perceived team support. Find-
ings were consistent with our theoretical model. For surface acting, bootstrap
results indicated that the indirect relationships between individual surface acting
(95% CI = .04, .20) and peer surface acting (95% CI = .01, .16) and turnover
intentions through perceived team support were significant. Extending the find-
ings from Study 1, Hypotheses 7a and 7b were supported.
Conclusion
Overall, the results of Study 2 were consistent with those of Study 1, provid-
ing broad support for our predictions. In particular, the conditional relation-
ships for individual deep acting at differing levels of peer deep acting proved
to be an important consideration in both the studies. However, the role of
perceived team support as a mediator was not supported for helping behavior.
Yet the results for turnover intentions were more promising.
General Discussion
When teammates work together to accomplish common goals, individual
deep acting occurs within a strong social context. For that reason, its effec-
tiveness seems partially dependent upon what others in the team are doing. In
general, deep acting should be more beneficial when peers also deep act. As
a means of addressing this issue, we developed a conceptual framework that
reflected the importance of affective entrainment within work teams that can
either reinforce or blunt the benefits of individual deep acting. More specifi-
cally, the broad benefits of deep acting by individual team members should
be greater when greater peer deep acting exists in the team. All our predic-
tions received at least partial support across two studies using student project
teams and nursing teams. Conducting both a longitudinal study involving
students and a field study involving employees helped us to extend emotional
labor theory.
Deep Acting of Emotional Displays

Among the participants of both studies, deep acting was positively related
to perceptions of supportive team relationships but only when peers also
engaged in deep acting. In Study 1, we also found evidence that the condi-
tional effect of individual deep acting on voice behavior was positive when
peer deep acting was high. In the established teams of Study 2, we saw simi-
lar significant conditional relationships between individual and peer deep
acting. In particular, this interaction predicted perceived team support, voice,
helping behavior, and turnover intentions. These results are consistent with
the mixed results previously reported for the relationship between deep act-
ing and various work outcomes (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Wang et al.,
2011). This suggests that moderators of individual deep acting, such as peer
deep acting, should be explored further.
Simply put, it is not enough to “smile and the world smiles back.” Our
framework suggests that deep acting provides benefits, at least in part, by
facilitating perceptions of supportive workplace relationships. According to
our framework, integrative emotional displays are strong signals that engen-
der perceptions of high quality relationships. Although individuals influence
the emotions of those with whom they work (e.g., Barsade, 2002; Totterdell,
2000), our results show that teammates’ emotional displays are not always in
harmony and that tangible benefits accrue when they are. We predicted that
when a greater proportion of team members used deep acting, team members
would perceive more supportive relationships within the team. In other
words, optimal benefits should emerge when individual deep acting is per-
formed among team members who also deep act. Both studies demonstrated
consistent support for the moderating effect of peer deep acting.
Perceived team support served as a promising mediator between emo-
tional labor and more distal behaviors and attitudes. Findings of both
empirical studies were generally consistent with this prediction, though
there were some exceptions. For example, in Study 2, perceived team sup-
port was not related to helping behavior. One possible explanation for this
finding might be the fact that helping behavior was reported by supervisors
who were not part of the team and therefore not privy to team perceptions.
Instead, they were observers of distal individual behaviors. The results for
turnover intentions mirrored Study 1 as there was a significant conditional
indirect effect of individual deep acting through perceived team support
when peer deep acting was high.
We note that the correlation between individual surface and deep acting
was in the opposite direction across the two studies. In Study 1, the two were
positively related (in student teams) but in Study 2 they were negatively
related (in nurse teams). This shift in sign is not uncommon across a wide
variety of emotional labor studies (Wang et al., 2011). Recent research sug-
gests that these divergent findings may be an artifact of a variable-centric
perspective that focuses too much on individual variable relationships.
Becker et al. 27
Following a person-centric perspective that focuses on patterns of response

by an individual, latent profile analysis suggests that there are systematic dif-
ferences in the combined use of surface acting and deep acting across differ-
ent subpopulations. These emotional labor profiles were related to antecedents
of individual deep and surface acting and various employee outcomes
(Gabriel, Daniels, Diefendorff, & Greguras, 2015).
Notably, there were a number of differences between the teams investi-
gated by the two studies. In particular, Study 2 consisted mostly of female
nurses (85%) involved in mature teams in a service-oriented field setting that
comprised working professionals, possessed formal leaders, and were moder-
ately interdependent. In contrast, Study 1 had a more gender-balanced student
sample (56% male) involved in knowledge-oriented project teams that were
newly formed, leaderless, and highly interdependent. Although these two
samples differ markedly, the degree of consistency in the results between the
two studies provides a degree of confidence in the generalizability of our con-
clusions and speaks to the value of considering emotional labor within teams.
In addition, the differences between these two samples could provide a road
map for future research in numerous ways. First, working professionals tend to
have relatively strong identifications with their work. As a result, they are more
likely to maintain an appropriate demeanor while on the job (cf. Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1993). Compared to students, nurses may have been more likely to
maintain effective levels of emotional regulation. If so, this would have made
it more difficult to obtain support for the predicted relationships.
Next, the influence of peer deep acting should increase as team interde-
pendence increases due to more frequent interaction and mutual dependence.
Thus, a promising avenue of future research would be to investigate which
characteristics explain the differences in our findings and establish boundary
conditions for the peer relationships of Study 1. Similarly, there may also be
situations where service providers and clients have close relationships, such
as when a contractor or a management consultant works for the same firm
over a period of years. In these situations, we would anticipate similar bene-
fits for deep acting to those found here. Together, our theoretical framework
and findings suggest that encouraging deep acting throughout teams can ben-
efit work team cohesiveness and effectiveness (Elfenbein et al., 2007).
Apart from these issues, the observed relationship between individual deep
acting and peer deep acting has an important methodological subtext—theo-
ries of emotional regulation among peers that consider only the individual
level of analysis absent of within team effects may risk being underspecified.
This was first suggested in Côté’s (2005) social interaction model, and we
have added further evidence that the inclusion of multiple, interdependent
sources of emotional labor is an important consideration for emotional labor
research (see also Becker & Cropanzano, 2015; Diefendorff, Erickson,

Grandey, & Dahling, 2011). For this reason, cavalier advice to problem
employees to “improve their attitude” is unlikely to be useful in team contexts.
Instead, organizations should consider team-based efforts to encourage deep
acting by all team members. In short, the encouragement of more genuine and
positive emotional displays in teams and organizations needs to be addressed
more broadly.
Why Only Positive Emotions?

Although there are relatively few examinations of emotional labor between
teammates (Hu & Shi, 2015; Ozcelik, 2013), research suggests that collec-
tive emotion regulation efforts within teams should be directed toward
increasing positive emotions (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). In other
words, employees in teams are formally and informally required to display
integrative feeling states. “When integrative emotional display rules are
present, surface acting involves suppressing negative emotions and/or fak-
ing positive emotions, and deep acting involves trying to experience posi-
tive emotions so that genuine positive displays follow” (Gosserand &
Diefendorff, 2005, p. 1256). Based on this reasoning, we decided to focus
on positive emotional displays within work teams. However, we propose a
broader definition of “positive” that includes some negative emotions that
have positive relational value. For example, compassion for a team member
who experiences a difficult situation would be considered a positive emo-
tional display. Although interactions between peers certainly can some-
times produce negative feelings (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002), we
would not expect team members to deliberately seek to create or amplify
hostile feelings toward one another.
Limitations and Future Research Directions

The purpose of this study was to investigate emotional labor within work
teams. We argued that the genuineness and positivity of emotional expres-
sions influence how team members process and respond to those displays.
From this perspective, we derived a number of specific hypotheses. Although
we generally accomplished our objective, it strikes us that future research is
necessary to investigate our framework further.
Our data were collected in field settings. As a result, we were unable to
manipulate or measure a number of intervening variables or to make causal
inferences. Laboratory experiments, which tend to be strong in internal
validity, would be useful to verify the causal order and the nature of the
Becker et al. 29
relationships outlined here. Second, we limited ourselves to criterion vari-

ables that pertained closely to the work team—helping, voice, and turnover
intentions. Although these variables were conceptually relevant among indi-
viduals working within a team, we did not explore a number of other possi-
ble criteria. Future work should explore team performance and work
attitudes. Third, though one of our criteria was not assessed using self-report
(helping behavior), it would be worthwhile to include additional objective
indicators, such as actual team performance, turnover, and counterproduc-
tive behaviors. It would also be interesting to incorporate peer ratings or
network analysis into our research design.
Conclusion
The present findings provide evidence that emotional labor among peers in
general and deep acting in particular is an important consideration for today’s
organizations (Côté & Morgan, 2002; Pugliesi, 1999). Furthermore, social
exchange theory provides a useful framework for explaining emotion regula-
tion within work teams. This study also integrates theoretical work regarding
team affective similarity and emotion expression clarity to show that peer
emotional labor is related to important team outcomes. Future research
should replicate and extend these findings in the hope that this knowledge
can lead to more effective teams and more supportive work relationships.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is the result of work sup-
ported with resources and the use of facilities of the Southern Arizona VA Healthcare
System.
References
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organiza-
tional support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process.
Journal of Management, 29, 99-118.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The
influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on
group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
Barsky, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Just feelings? The role of affect in
the formation of organizational fairness judgments. Journal of Management, 37,
248-279.
Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources
of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 84-93.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random
indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163.
Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2015). Good acting requires a good cast: A meso-
level model of deep acting in work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
36, 232-249.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and
employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 1113-1132.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., Goldsby, M. G., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). A con-
struct validity study of commitment and perceived support variables. Group &
Organization Management, 30, 153-180.
Bolton, S. C. (2000). Who cares? Offering emotion work as a “gift” in the nursing
labor process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 580-586.
Bozionelos, N., & Kiamou, K. (2008). Emotion work in the Hellenic frontline ser-
vices environment: How it relates to emotional exhaustion and work attitudes.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1108-1130.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model
of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
7, 57-67.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional
Labor Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 365-379.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain
at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behav-
ior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
893-910.
Chen, Z., Eisenberger, R., Johnson, K. M., Sucharski, I. L., & Aselage, J. (2009).
Perceived organizational support and extra-role-performance: Which leads to
which? Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 119-124.
Côté, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on
work strain. Academy of Management Review, 30, 509-530.
Côté, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association
between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 947-962.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. H. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange
theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management
Annals, 11, 479-516.
Becker et al. 31
Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. (2017). Affective events and the
development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42,
233-258.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship
of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplin-
ary review. Journal of Management, 27, 874-900.
Diefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R., Grandey, 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, 170-186.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor pro-
cess: A control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 945-959.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organi-
zational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L.
(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational
support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item
scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public
Health, 58, 637-643.
Elfenbein, H. A., Polzer, J. T., & Ambady, N. (2007). Team emotion recognition accu-
racy and team performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel
(Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Functionality, intentionality and
morality (Vol. 3, pp. 87-119). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.
Fisk, G. M., & Friesen, J. P. (2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and
LMX as predictors of followers’ job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1-12.
Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional
labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100, 863-879.
Gada, N. (1999). Beyond the handshake: Intentional synchrony effects on job inter-
view evaluation (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Toledo, OH.
Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Emotion regulation in leader–follower relationships.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 17, 482-500.
Gosserand, R. H., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional
labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1256-1264.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface and deep acting as pre-
dictors of emotional exhaustion and service delivery. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 86-96.
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right:
Customer verbal aggression toward service employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 397-418.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is
“service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service
encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 38-55.
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, 323-349.
Grandey, A. A., Rupp, D., & Brice, W. N. (2015). Emotional labor threatens decent
work: A proposal to eradicate emotional display rules. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36, 770-785.
Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits
in the workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and
Emotion, 26, 31-55.
Griffeth, R., Hom, P., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and cor-
relates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications
for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regula-
tion processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feel-
ing. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holman, D., Chissick, C., & Totterdell, P. (2002). The effects of performance moni-
toring on emotional labor and well-being in call centers. Motivation and Emotion,
26, 57-81.
Hu, X., & Shi, J. (2015). Employees’ surface acting in interactions with leaders and
peers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1132-1152.
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, 361-389.
Humphrey, R. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). The bright sight of
emotional labor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 749-769.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
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 dispositional affectivity and emotional labor. Personnel
Psychology, 66, 47-90.
Lakin, J. L., Jefferies, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The chameleon
effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious
mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145-165.
Larsen, R. J., & Kasimatis, M. (1990). Individual differences in entrainment of
mood to the weekly calendar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
164-171.
Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1993). Power and the emergence of commitment behavior
in negotiated exchange. American Sociological Review, 58, 465-481.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework
and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Becker et al. 33
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the rela-
tionships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis.
Group & Organization Management, 33, 243-268.
Ozcelik, H. (2013). An empirical analysis of surface acting in intra-organizational
relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 291-309.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM frame-
work for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job
satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 125-154.
Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional
labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal,
54, 116-136.
Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2004). Gender differences: Emotional expression and
feelings of personal inauthenticity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 715-721.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in
schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teach-
ers’ extra-role behaviors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649-659.
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003). Customer service
providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the
customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 179-187.
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation
analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692-700.
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective
performance in professional sports teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
848-859.
Totterdell, P., Kellet, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood
linkages in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1504-1515.
Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making the break
count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences,
and positive affective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 131-146.
Van Der Schalk, J., Fischer, A., Doosje, B., Wigboldus, D., Hawk, S., Rotteveel, M.,
& Hess, U. (2011). Convergent and divergent responses to emotional displays of
ingroup and outgroup. Emotion, 11, 286-298.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors-in pur-
suit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research
in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical
Reviews, 17, 215-285.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors:
Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 108-119.
Volmer, J. (2012). Catching leader’s mood: Contagion effects in teams. Administrative
Sciences, 2, 203-220.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Paul, J., Burke, M., Christian, M., & Eissa, G. (2016).
Change the referent? A meta-analytic investigation of direct and referent-shift con-
sensus models for organizational climate. Journal of Management, 42, 838-861.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model
of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29, 239-261.
Wang, G., Seibert, S. E., & Boles, T. L. (2011). Synthesizing what we have known and
looking ahead: A meta-analytic review of 30 years of emotional labor research.
In C. E. J. Hartel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on emotion in
organizations: What have we learned? Ten years on (Vol. 7, pp. 15-43). Bingley,
UK: Emerald.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal
of Management, 17, 601-617.
Associate Editor: William Gardner

Submitted Date: 1 July 2017
Revised Submission Date: 5 April 2017
Acceptance Date: 7 April 2017
Author Biographies
William J. Becker is an associate professor of management at the Pamplin College
of Business at Virginia Tech. He received his PhD from the University of Arizona.
His research interests include work emotion, turnover, organizational neuroscience,
and leadership.
Russell Cropanzano is a professor of management and entrepreneurship at the Leeds
School of Business. His primary research explores workplace justice and behavioral
ethics. He is a past editor of the Journal of Management and a fellow in the Society
for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, the Southern Management Association,
and the Association for Psychological Science.
Phoenix Van Wagoner is currently a PhD student in Strategic, Organizational and
Entrepreneurial studies program at Leeds School of Business. His primary research
interests include leadership and diversity, emotions, and reflection.
Ksenia Keplinger is a research associate at the Leeds School of Business. She holds
a PhD in Social Sciences (Focus on Organizational Behavior) from the Johannes
Kepler University. Her research interests include diversity of the workforce, account-
ability of leaders and followers, and ethical leadership in unconventional contexts.

Becker2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Becker2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

707608

William J. Becker1, Russell Cropanzano2,

1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA

theoretical and practical consideration for understanding emotional labor

Positive emotional displays toward coworkers tend to have a number of ben-

Emotional Labor Among Individuals Within Teams

Individual and Peer Deep Acting

Figure 1. General framework of individual and team emotional labor.

Although deep acting is generally beneficial, research on entrainment sug-

Emotional contagion is another form of unconscious mimicry that con-

Hypothesis 1: Peer deep acting moderates the positive relationship

Extra-role behavior and perceived team support. According to Van Dyne,

dissent—are prohibitive. That is, an individual exhibits extra-role behavior

Hypothesis 2: The moderated relationship between individual deep acting

In general, people prefer to preserve supportive relationships and with-

Hypothesis 3: The moderated relationship between individual deep acting

Individual and Peer Surface Acting

Revisiting social exchange theory. While surface acting, individuals actively

Hypothesis 4: Individual surface acting will be negatively related to per-

The consequences of diminished social support. When social support is lowered

Hypothesis 6: There will be an indirect relationship between both the

In this article, we propose and test the theoretical framework presented in

Pilot Validation Study

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Pilot Validation

Following Van Dyne and LePine (1998), we measured two aspects of

correlated, providing evidence of convergent validity. As shown in Table 1,

Measures. Unless stated otherwise, measures used a five-point Likert-type

Table 2. Results of CFA for Study 1.

Model χ2 CFI RMSEA

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Study 1 Variables.

Multilevel analysis. Our data contained a hierarchical structure in which

Results and Discussion

Table 4. HLM Results for Study 1.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Before testing the multilevel relationships, we first evaluated them at

According to our theoretical framework, both individual surface acting

Measures. Unless stated otherwise, measures used a five-point Likert-type scale

Table 5. Results of CFA for Study 2.

Model χ2 CFI RMSEA

Results and Discussion

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Study 2 Variables.

Table 7. HLM Results for Study 2.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Deep acting. Similar to Study 1, the interaction term between individual

working nurses (γ = .25, SE = .12, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was

Surface acting. As shown in Model 1 of Table 7, individual surface acting (γ =

Deep Acting of Emotional Displays

Following a person-centric perspective that focuses on patterns of response

research (see also Becker & Cropanzano, 2015; Diefendorff, Erickson,

Why Only Positive Emotions?

Limitations and Future Research Directions

relationships outlined here. Second, we limited ourselves to criterion vari-

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Associate Editor: William Gardner

You might also like