The Spanish Journal of Psychology (2020), 23, e28, 1–14.

© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2020

doi:10.1017/SJP.2020.29

Emotional Dissonance in the Spanish Services Sector:

The Role of Support in the Workplace

Beatriz Sora1 and María Vera2

1
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Spain)
2
Universidad Pablo de Olavide (Spain)

Abstract. The purpose of this study was twofold. The first aim was to analyze the detrimental effect that emotional
dissonance may have on service workers by testing its relationship with job satisfaction, intention to leave the organization,
and organizational deviance. The second was to test whether two types of social support (i.e., co-worker and organizational
support) and their combination moderate these relationships from a multilevel perspective. The sample was composed of
556 employees from Spanish service sector. Using random coefficient models analyses, results showed, first, that emotional
dissonance was related to lower levels of job satisfaction (PE = –.1, p < .05) and higher levels of intention to leave the
organization (PE = .12, p < .05); second, that co-worker support moderate the relationship between emotional dissonance
and job satisfaction (PE = .10, p < .05), organizational deviance (PE = –.08, p < .05), and intention to leave the organization
(PE = –.13, p < .05); third, organizational support, conceptualized as a collective construct at organizational level, moderate
the relationship between emotional dissonance and organizational deviance (PE = –.08, p < .05); and finally, the
combination of both types of support do not explained additional variance of the emotional dissonance-outcomes relation.
These results underline the need to take into consideration different source of social support and their levels of analysis to
better understand emotional dissonance and its outcomes.

Received 10 February 2020; Revised 16 June 2020; Accepted 18 June 2020

Keywords: emotional dissonance, organizational deviance, support

Since the 1970s, the industrial model has changed from
production to services. Nowadays, the services sector is
the main contributor to growth and employment in the
EU, accounting for about two thirds of both EU employ-
ment and value added (European Comission, 2016).
Indeed, in Spain, the services sector has become the
most important sector in terms of Gross National Prod-
uct (GDP) and job creation (Instituto Nacional de Esta-
dística, 2018). However, this transformation has also
created new demands and stressors. One of the main
demands on workers is increased social interaction with
customers, where emotional regulation plays a funda-
mental role. Services workers have to manage their
emotions as part of their jobs. Therefore, workers por-
tray emotions that are not necessarily felt to comply
with display rules that dictate the kinds of emotions
that are acceptable in particular situation (O’Brien &
Linehan, 2019). This demand has been called work emo-
tion, understood as “the psychological process of regu-
lating organizationally desired emotions as part of one’s
job” (Zapf & Holz, 2006, p. 3). Far from being an isolated
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dra.
Beatriz Sora. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. Facultat de Psicologia.
Rambla Poblenou, 156. 08018 Barcelona (Spain).
E-mail: bsora@uoc.edu.
Conflicts of Interest: None
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency,
commercial or not-for-profit sectors
problem, Eurofound (2019) data shows that work is
becoming more emotionally demanding, which poses
a risk to health, as well as the long-term sustainability of
work itself.
However, employees cannot always display the orga-
nization’s desired emotions in a natural way. Hence, a
facet of work emotion that is of theoretical and practical
interest is emotional dissonance (Abraham, 1999a).
Emotional dissonance is defined as the requirement
for employees to express emotions that are not genu-
inely felt in a situation (Zapf & Holz, 2006). Given that
employees’ responses conflict with the expectations
arising from their role and the desired level of emotion,
the literature on stress suggests that emotional disso-
nance is a form of person-role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964),
and therefore it can be understood as a work stressor
according to the Conservation of Resources Model
(COR). This model suggests that employees experience
stress in three ways: when there is a threat to their
resources, when there is a loss of resources, and when
individuals do not get the expected return on invest of
their resources (Hobfoll, 2001); in other words, COR
model posits that people are intrinsically motivated to
How to cite this article:
Sora, B., & Vera, M. (2020). Emotional dissonance in the spanish
services sector: The role of support in the workplace. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 23. e28. Doi:10.1017/SJP.2020.29

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
 2 B. Sora & M. Vera
obtain, retain, and protect these resources, understand-
ing resources as “those objects, personal characteristics,
conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual
or that serve as a means for attainment of these objects,
personal characteristics, conditions, or energies”
(Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). In fact, resource loss is more
important for employees than its gain, thus they strive
to protect their resources from loss. Thus, when
employees cope with events that may lead to possible
loss of physical, personal, or social resources, they typ-
ically try to compensate for the lost resources (resource
replacement) and minimize any potential threats to
resources (resource protection). For this reason,
employees are more susceptible to workplace stressors
that threaten their resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Accord-
ingly, emotional dissonance, being a stressor (Heuven
& Bakker, 2003), can lead to a depletion of the individ-
uals’ energy (Molino et al., 2016) which have negative
outcomes. As Grandey (2003) stated, emotional disso-
nance involved an effort by front-line employees in
service encounters difficult to restore.
Consequently, emotional dissonance leads employees
to experience strain and various harmful changes in their
attitudes toward their jobs, their behaviors, and their
health (e.g., Alrawadieh et al., 2020; Andela et al., 2016;
Hofmann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2017; Kwak et al., 2018;
Pugh et al., 2010). Some of these outcomes have been
extensively studied in the literature: Burnout (e.g., Kwak
et al., 2018); job satisfaction (e.g., Hofmann & Stokbur-
ger-Sauer, 2017; Taxer, & Frenzel, 2018); intention to
leave the organization (e.g., Diamond, 2005; Zito et al.,
2018). However, some consequences of emotional disso-
nance still require further study, such as the role of
emotional dissonance in deviance behavior (e.g., Bech-
toldt et al., 2007). Additional empirical evidence is
needed to clarify these relationships. Hence, this study
aims to contribute in the advance of understanding
about effect of emotional dissonance on service
employees’ reactions, and more specifically on job satis-
faction, organizational deviance and intention to leave
the organization.
In this context, a main concern of academics and
professionals is the identification of potential coping
strategies for emotional dissonance and protective con-
structs that can mitigate the harmful influence of emo-
tional dissonance on employees. That is, and according
to the COR model, the searching for resources that could
refill the lost. Several studies have examined a number
of personal buffers, such as self-efficacy (Indregard
et al., 2018); emotional competence (Giardini & Frese,
2006); or self-esteem (Abraham, 1999b). Likewise, other
studies have also considered the possible buffering role
of the work context. For example, social support has
been shown to have a beneficial influence on employees
in relation to emotional dissonance (Abraham, 1998;
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
1999a; Brough et al., 2018) as well as organizational
resources (Andela et al., 2018). In fact, Hobfoll et al.
(1990), within the COR model, stated that social support
played a central role. Specifically, they stated that social
support provides a major reservoir for resources outside
those endowed to the self. So, “people will strive to
maintain social support both to meet their needs to
preserve particular resources and in order to protect
and maintain their identity” (p. 467).
Moreover, literature on social support argues that
different sources of support can play distinct and essen-
tial roles for employees (Susskind et al., 2007). Research
needs to be extended and more specifically address the
role of different sources of support (Kim et al., 2019; Kim
& Choi, 2018). This study will analyze two types of
social support from a multilevel approach: one from
an individual perspective (co-worker support) and
other from an organizational perspective (organiza-
tional support). Literature on emotional dissonance is
mostly focused on an individual perspective, overlook-
ing the effect of context on employees. Neglecting the
hierarchical nature of nested levels in organizations
may lead to developing partial models for highly com-
plex phenomena (Kozlowsky & Klein, 2000). It is neces-
sary to adopt multilevel perspective that involves
factors at different levels to better understand individ-
uals’ outcomes in service work settings. The multilevel
perspective assumes the non-independence of percep-
tions. Individuals interact each other and are influenced
by their social contexts; while these contexts are, in turn,
influenced by individuals, facilitating so the emergence
of common perceptions. As Rousseau (1985) and Chan
(1998) pointed out, individual approach focus on the
differences between individuals, while studies at higher
level (eg. work unit or organizational level) focus on
variation between groups and homogeneity within the
groups. If only an individual perspective is adopted, the
differences between the individuals are identified, but
not the similarities between the individuals of the same
group and the differences between groups. Hence, it is
needed to adopt a multilevel perspective that allows
studying the relationships at different levels of analysis
(e.g., individual and organizational level). Applied to
emotional dissonance, only a bunch of multilevel stud-
ies can be found. They examine contextual phenomena
related to emotional dissonance, such as collective cli-
mate (Carrasco et al., 2014; Ortiz-Bonnín et al., 2016) or
leader´s emotional labor (Li et al., 2019). So, Carrasco
et al. (2014) concluded that even though emotional dis-
sonance is an individual-level construct addressing
internal phenomena can be affected by group percep-
tions (e.g., at organizational level). In this respect, in
multilevel literature, social support plays an important
role as a contextual buffer of work stress (e.g., Sora et al.,
2011). Hence, it seems plausible to suggest that social

ORGANIZATIONAL
LEVEL
INDIVIDUAL
Emotional
LEVEL
dissonance
Co-worker
support
Figure 1. Hypothesized Model
support can buffer the detrimental effect of emotional
dissonance on employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
The present study contributes by answering these
calls for more research. Thus, the purpose of this study
is: First, to contribute to understanding the relationship
between emotional dissonance and employee outcomes
by providing additional empirical evidence; second, to
analyze the potential moderating role of social support
provided by different sources (i.e., by co-workers and
organization); and third, to examine the buffer effect of
organizational support from a multilevel perspective
(see Figure 1).
Emotional Dissonance Outcomes. As mentioned above,
emotional dissonance involves a clash between per-
sonal true emotions and the emotions prescribed by
the organization. Person-role stress literature defines
emotional dissonance as a form of person-role con-
flict because there is a lack of complementarity
between the person’s response and role expectations
about the desirable emotions. Not being able to feel
what one is supposed to feel may cause people to feel
false and hypocritical, and lead to alienation from
one’s feelings. Hence, and according to the COR
model, emotional dissonance lead to a depletion of
the individuals’ energy and this stressful situation
can cause various stress reactions (Zito et al., 2018).
Therefore, this discrepancy may be associated with
an impairment in well-being, attitudes, and behav-
iors (Andela et al., 2018; Andela et al., 2016; Kim
et al., 2019; Pugh et al., 2010; van Dijk & Kirk, 2007;
Zapf, 2002).
One of the most extensively studied outcomes is job
satisfaction (i.e., Abraham, 1999a; Cheung & Tang, 2010;
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Emotional Dissonance, Outcomes & Social Support 3
Organizational
support
Job Satisfaction
Organizational
Deviance
Intention to leave
Organization
Zito et al., 2018; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Taxer &
Frenzel, 2018), understood as an attitude or emotional
state toward work that is influenced by situational fac-
tors, such as the appraisal of one’s working conditions
(Locke, 1976). Based on Hochschild’s (1983) view, emo-
tional dissonance may cause alienation and estrange-
ment from one’s feelings and, therefore, be negatively
correlated with job satisfaction (Hofmann & Stokbur-
ger-Sauer, 2017).
Similarly, in face of the loss of resources caused by
emotional dissonance, specially, when employees do
not get the expected return on invest of their resources,
they could increase organizational deviance behavior,
understood as an intentional employee behavior that is
harmful to the legitimate interests of an organization
(Gruys & Sackett, 2003). Kundu and Gaba (2017) con-
cluded that the service workers are more likely to show
deviant behavior as a result of the discrepancy between
the felt emotions and the expressed emotions. More-
over, Spector and Fox (2002) have claimed that negative
emotions result into organizational deviance, whereas
the positive emotions have a tendency to promote orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors. In this line, emotional
dissonance was found to be negatively related to vari-
ous individual outcomes such as employee’s citizenship
behavior (Cheung & Cheung, 2013) and service sabo-
tage (JungHoon & Chihyung, 2014).
Another consequence of emotional dissonance is
employees’ intention to leave the organization. Hence,
and according to the COR model, in the absence of
resource refill, in order to minimize resource loss,
employees engage in withdrawal behavior (Mishra &
Kumar, 2016). In this line, some studies (e.g., Abraham,
1999a; Diamond, 2005; Zito et al., 2018; Mobley, 1977)
 4 B. Sora & M. Vera
have positively associated emotional dissonance with
an intention to leave the organization.
Hence, in the face of the threat, loss or not expected
return of resources, employees are in a stress situation
which could lead to negative outcomes, such as low
level of job satisfaction, and high levels of organiza-
tional deviance and intention to leave. Specifically:
Hypothesis 1. Emotional dissonance is negatively
related to job satisfaction (H1a) and positively related
to organizational deviance (H1b) and intention to leave
the organization (H1c).
Organizational Support: A Collective Phenomenon. Most
research on organizational support has conceptualized
organizational support from an individual perspective,
focusing mainly on individual employees’ perceptions.
However, Eisenberger et al. (1986) suggested that
employees from an organization can share their percep-
tions of how the organization value their contributions
and take care their well-being. Thus, employees share
the degree of their organizations are committed to them,
that is, that there may be a collective perception of
organizational support. This assumption is congruent
with the bottom-up process for the construction of a
collective perception (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) and
the consensus composition model of Chan (1998). This
model suggests that the agreement in perceptions of
employees within an organization underpinned the
basis for the conceptualization and operationalization
of a construct at higher levels of analysis with an iso-
morphic functioning compared to lower levels (e.g.,
individual).
Although emotional dissonance and support has
been widely studied, there is no existing literature that
take into account the collective nature of support.
The Buffering Role of Social Support from a Multilevel
Approach: Co-workers and Organization. Social support is,
overall, a source of emotional resources (e.g., feelings of
belonging, intimacy, improved sense of self-worth, and
sense of control) and practical/informational resources
(e.g., funding and advice) (Greenglass, 2000; Himle
et al., 1989). Within the COR model, Hobfoll (1989)
argued that perception of social support is an important
resource and this resource gain is especially important
in the context of resource loss.
This social support in the workplace can be provided
by different agents at different levels. The COR theory
incorporates the notion of resource appraisal (Hobfoll
2001; Hobfoll & Kay 2007), suggesting that employees
assess the extent to which the resource (e.g., source of
support) matches the stressor. Taking into account that
this study analyses different types of outcomes from a
more individual focus (i.e., job satisfaction) to an orga-
nizational focus (i.e., organizational deviance). Support
from co-workers (individual approach) and organiza-
tion (organizational approach) were selected.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Co-worker support was defined as co-workers’ will-
ingness to assist in carrying work-related duties to com-
pletion, in the form of sharing knowledge, providing
encouragement, or supporting one another on assigned
tasks. Thus, co-worker support involves emotional sup-
port, useful information, and directive guidelines to do
things in new ways and with consideration (Guchait
et al., 2014).
According to Organizational Support Theory,
employees perceive that they are supported by their
organizations when the following practices occur:
Allowing employees to express their opinions, showing
concern, having regard for employees’ best interests,
offering organizational rewards, caring about the
employees’ well-being, providing help when needed,
and devising favorable job conditions such as pay,
training, promotions, and job enrichment (Eisenberger
et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Therefore,
perceived organizational support is the main design of
the organizational support theory and it is the extent to
which individuals assume that organization appreciates
their participation and is responsible for their welfare
and prosperity (Baran et al., 2012). According to Mishra
and Kumar (2016, p. 782), “since emotional dissonance
is considered as the state of discomfort, unease, and
tension due to the discrepancy between felt and
expressed emotions, perceived organizational support
may provide resources that enable workers to cope with
dissonance”.
Therefore, social support from co-workers and orga-
nizations may promote an atmosphere of support,
understanding, and trust, helping employees to per-
ceive the situation as less stressful (Viswesvaran et al.,
1999). Thus, individuals who receive social support in
their workplaces are better able to cope with stressful
events and experience less detrimental attitudes and
behaviors (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Jones et al., 1995). In
summary, regardless of the source, social support can
ameliorate the stress-strain link by protecting individ-
uals from stressors (Cohen, 1992).
Applied to the stressor of emotional dissonance, it
seems plausible to assume that social support from both
the co-workers and the organization may moderate the
link between emotional dissonance and employee out-
comes, since and according to the COR model, we
expect that support will provide resources to replenish
the resource loss. However, there is little literature about
this relationship, with some exceptions. For example,
Kim and Choi (2018), showed that social support and
organizational support moderated the relationship
between emotional dissonance and burnout; and Kim
et al., (2019) showed this same interaction between
emotional dissonance and social-organizational sup-
port to explain turnover intention. Abraham (1998;
1999a) observed the significant moderating effect of

co-worker support on the relationship between emo-
tional dissonance, on the one hand, and job satisfaction
and organizational commitment, on the other, Abraham
concluded that highly developed social networks effec-
tively buffer the aversive effects of emotional disso-
nance.
In this vein, we propose that both co-worker and
organizational support may ameliorate the negative
effect of emotional dissonance on employees’ attitudes
and behaviors. Hence, we aim to analyze the role of
social support, taking into account its different sources
(i.e., co-workers and organization), in the relationship
between emotional dissonance and its outcomes
(i.e., job satisfaction, organizational deviance, and inten-
tion to leave the organization). The following cross-level
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2. Co-worker support moderates the rela-
tionship between emotional dissonance and job satis-
faction (H2a), organizational deviance (H2b), and
intention to leave the organization (H2c). Employees
with high co-worker support will react less negatively
when they experience emotional dissonance compared
to those who has low co-worker support.
Hypothesis 3. Organizational support moderates the
relationship between emotional dissonance and job sat-
isfaction (H3a), organizational deviance (H3b), and inten-
tion to leave the organization (H3c). Employees who
work in organizations with high levels of organizational
support will react less negatively when they experience
emotional dissonance compared to those who work in
organizations with low organizational support.
The research on social support mainly examines how
different agents provide support in the workplace in
isolation and independently. For instance, some litera-
ture has focused on co-worker support (e.g., Akgunduz
& Eryilmaz, 2018; Malott et al., 1984), whereas other
literature has focused on organizational support (e.g.,
Kossek et al., 2011; Sora et al., 2011). But much less
research has examined the combination of different
types of social support (e.g., Guchait et al., 2014; Maertz
et al., 2007; Newman et al., 2012), and no studies have
examined its relationship with emotional dissonance. It
is important to note that, although each individual kind
of support is significant per se, combinations of them
maximize any given strategy. We use the term “combi-
nation” to refer to the presence of different types of
social support in an organization. Organizational sup-
port is perceived as different and separate from
co-worker support because employees are likely to have
different relationships with their organizations and
their co-workers (Guchait et al., 2014). For example,
even though an organization might create a plan for
increasing social support at work (e.g., reward system
by increasing employees’ efforts at work), co-workers
also collaborate in this support (e.g., giving advice to a
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Emotional Dissonance, Outcomes & Social Support 5
colleague). Along similar lines, we argue that the effect
of organizational support on employees will be greater
when co-worker support is also present than when it is
not. Thus, workers who experience emotional disso-
nance but have high co-worker and organizational sup-
port will report higher job satisfaction and lower
organizational deviance and intention to leave the orga-
nization than those who have lower levels of either of
these types of support. Hence, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4. The combination of co-worker and orga-
nizational support moderates the relationship between
emotional dissonance and job satisfaction (H4a), organiza-
tional deviance (H4b), and intention to leave the organiza-
tion (H4c). Employees who work in organizations with
high levels of organizational support and have co-worker
support will react less negatively when they experience
emotional dissonance compared to those employees who
have low levels of one or both types of social support.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Researchers contacted the human resources managers of
organizations to explain the purpose of the study and
request their collaboration. In the organizations that
agreed to collaborate, the researchers distributed ques-
tionnaires among the employees. Researchers set up an
appointment to collect the completed questionnaires at a
later time (approximately one week). Participation was
voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were
guaranteed. A total of 556 employees from 53 organiza-
tions participated in this study. They were all embedded
in the services sector: 7% in the hotel industry (n = 4), 38%
in the education sector (n = 20), 21% in retail (n = 11), 4%
in the healthcare sector (n = 2), 6% in the communication
sector, and 23% in other services (n = 12). Of the partic-
ipants, 70% were women (n = 391), and 28% were men (n
= 156). The average age was 40.65 (SD = 10.43). Regard-
ing education, 7% of the sample only had primary stud-
ies (n = 65), 25% had graduated from high school (n =
142), 47% had a university degree (n = 258), and 13% had
post-graduate qualifications (n = 71). Finally, we were
unable to obtain data on sex for 2% (n = 9) and education
for 4% (n = 20), due to missing data. Response rate in this
study was 63%. Furthermore, this study followed the
ethical protocol and guidelines of our university.
Measures
Sex (0, woman; 1, men) and age were measured as control
variables. Different consequences of work emotion may
be dependent on personal variables such as gender and
age (Grandey, 2003). For example, Domagalski (1999)
showed that women were more sensitive to others’
emotional signals and more proficient at emotional
 6 B. Sora & M. Vera
management than men. In addition, Kruml and Geddes
(2000) pointed out that older employees were more
proficient at emotion management and showed more
suitable emotions than younger employees.
Emotional dissonance. This was measured with the
4-item scale for emotional dissonance developed by
Zapf et al. (1999). The response scale ranged from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One item is:
“Display emotions which do not correspond to inner
feelings”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .87.
Social support. This was measured using a reduced
4-item scale (Eisenberger et al., 1990). In order to mea-
sure both organizational and co-worker support, this
scale was measured twice in the questionnaire, but
modifying its referents. Accordingly, four items asked
about the organization’s support, and the other four
asked about co-workers’ support. The response alterna-
tives ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). An example of the items on the scale for organi-
zational support is: “My organization strongly con-
siders my goals and values”. For co-worker support,
an item is: “My co-workers really care about my well-
being”. The Cronbach’s alphas for the scales were .86 for
organizational support and .79 for co-worker support.
Job Satisfaction. This was assessed with a 4-item scale
developed by Price (1997). An example of an item is: “I
find enjoyment in my job”. The response range was
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cron-
bach’s alpha was .79.
Organizational deviance. This was measured with a
reduced 7-item scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). For
example: “Taken property from work without permis-
sion”. The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .77.
Intention to leave organization. This was measured
through a 3-item scale based on Sjöberg and Sverke’s
(2000) measure. An example of an item is: “Finally, I have
a strong intention to quit”. The response range was from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability was .82.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations), cor-
relation analysis, and factorial confirmatory analysis
were computed as preliminary analyses. The factorial
confirmatory analysis was computed in order to further
validate the measures involved in this study. Two
models were tested: A one-factor solution and a six-
factor solution. Later, random coefficient analyses were
computed to test our multilevel hypothesis. However,
first their prerequisites were examined (Bliese, 2000):
Group-level properties of outcomes variables were cal-
culated through ICC1; the intercept variation in out-
comes variables was computed by the chi-squared
likelihood test, which compared a model with random
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
intercept and another without random intercept; and to
examine the between-groups slopes variation in out-
comes variables, we tested the chi-squared likelihood
between a model with a random slope for emotional
dissonance and a model without a random slope. Ran-
dom coefficient models (RCM) assume the non-
independence of the variables, examining the data at
different levels of analysis and including the random
error associated with the membership in an organiza-
tion. To explain the dependent variables at individual
level (job satisfaction, organizational deviance and
intention to leave), the following variables were
included: Sex, age, and organizational support at indi-
vidual level as control variables, emotional dissonance,
and co-worker support at individual level and organi-
zational support at organizational level, and the inter-
action of emotional dissonance and co-workers support
at individual level and organizational support at orga-
nizational level. These analyses were performed using
the program “Nonlinear and Linear Mixed Effects”
(NLME; Pinheiro & Bates, 2000), in the R program
(R Development Core Team, 2004). We used centered
scores to solve possible problems of multicollinearity.
Graphical representation was performed to better
understand the nature of the interactions.
Results
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations)
and correlations among variables are presented in
Table 1. The correlations among all the variables were
significant and in the expected direction. Regarding the
confirmatory factor analysis, this analysis presented a
better fit for the six-factor solution than for the one-factor
model (M0) and the five-factor model (M5). Both solu-
tions showed an unsatisfactory fit between the data and
the hypothesized model. The Chi-Squared Goodness-of-
Fit Index (χ2) did not indicate a good fit, although this is
probably due to the sample size (M0, χ2 = 4,089.05, p < .01;
M5, χ2 = 1,595.93, p < .01). The Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) indicated a value of .15 and
.09, respectively, showing an inadequate fit of above .08
(Browne & Cudeck, 1993). CFI and NNFI values also
showed an unsatisfactory fit because they were below .90
(M0, .42 and .33; M5, .80 and .76) (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993). By contrast, the six-factor model (M6), presented
an excellent fit, except for the Chi-Squared Goodness-of-
Fit Index, but, as mentioned above, this was probably
due to the sample size (χ2 = 816.07, p < .01). The RMSEA
index was .06 and showed a good fit, as its value was
lower than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). For CFI (.92)
and NNFI (.90), the values exceeded .90, also indicating
good fit (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993).
Table 2 shows random coefficient model results for
emotional dissonance and social support in predicting
 Emotional Dissonance, Outcomes & Social Support 7

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (Means and Standard Deviations) and Correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Sex (dummy) – – –
2. Age 40.65 6.26 .01 –
3. Emotional Dissonance 2.93 1.00 .01 –.06 –
4. Organizational Support 3.09 1.08 .02 –.15** –.15** –
5. Co-workers Support 3.81 .83 –.03 –.14** –.15** .37** –
6. Job Satisfaction 4.06 .84 –.13** .00 –.25** .36** .37** –
7. Organizational deviance 1.42 .68 .14** –.11** .15** –.16** –.18** –.45** –
8. Intention to leave Organization 1.72 .90 .02 –.00 .23** –.37** –.36** –.71** .41** –

Note.
*p < .05. **p < 0.1, two-tailed.

Table 2. Random Coefficient Models Predicting Job Satisfaction, Organizational Deviance and Intention to Leave Organization

Job Satisfaction Organizational deviance Intention to leave organization

PE SE p PE SE p PE SE p

Intercept 4.16 .051 .001 1.33 .043 .001 1.73 .050 .001
Gender –0.266 .072 .001 0.221 .063 .001 0.095 .079 .226
Age 0.004 .003 .208 –0.009 .002 .001 –0.002 .003 .441
Organizational supporta 0.189 .041 .007 –0.055 .036 .172 –0.231 .045 .003
Emotional dissonance –0.115 .042 .001 0.043 .032 .130 0.116 .039 .001
Co–workers support 0.229 .042 .001 –0.109 .037 .003 –0.250 .046 .001
Organizational supportb 0.044 .070 .529 –0.036 .060 .556 0.007 .072 .922
Emotional dissonance*CS 0.104 .042 .013 –0.082 .036 .022 –0.126 .044 .004
Emotional dissonance*OS 0.048 .054 .372 –0.083 .041 .046 0.006 .051 .906
CS*OS –0.055 .054 .301 0.021 .047 .649 –0.010 .058 .857
Emotional dissonance*CS*OS 0.007 .056 .887 0.047 .047 .312 –0.054 .059 .354

Note. PE = parameter estimate; SE = standard error; OS = Organizational Support; CS = Co-workers.

a
Organizational support is measured at individual level and it is considered as a control variable.
b
Organizational support is at organizational level.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

job satisfaction, organizational deviance, and intention

Figure 2. Interaction between Emotional Dissonance and
Co-worker Support in Predicting Job Satisfaction
to leave the organization, after controlling for sex and
age. The results showed that emotional dissonance was
related to lower levels of job satisfaction (H1a confirmed)
and intention to leave the organization (H1c confirmed).
Furthermore, the main effects of co-worker support
were significant, although they were not part of the
hypothesis. Co-worker support were positively associ-
ated with job satisfaction and negatively associated
with organizational deviance and intention to leave
the organization.
The results provided support for Hypotheses 2 signif-
icant interaction terms between emotional dissonance
and co-worker support were found in the prediction of
all the outcomes: Job satisfaction, organizational devi-
ance, and intention to leave the organization. To better
understand the nature of these interactive effects, we
made graphic representations of them. Figures 2 shows

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
 8 B. Sora & M. Vera
that the negative effect of emotional dissonance on job
satisfaction was buffered by high co-worker support.
Thus, the level of job satisfaction remains stable in spite
of high emotional dissonance if high co-worker support
is perceived.
Figures 3 and 4 show a buffer effect of co-worker
support on organizational deviance and intention to
leave the organization. The increase in organizational
deviance and intention to leave the organization is
higher when low co-worker support is perceived. In
fact, if high co-worker support is perceived, the levels
of organizational deviance and intention to leave the
organization are maintained when emotional disso-
nance is experienced.
Figure 3. Interaction between Emotional Dissonance and
Co-worker Support in Predicting Organizational Deviance
5 bution was to provide additional evidence to the rela-
Low co-worker
support
Intention to leave organization
4 High co-worker
support
3 suffering from emotional dissonance were less satisfied
2
1 well-being because emotional dissonance can have neg-
Low emotional High emotional
dissonance dissonance
Figure 4. Interaction between Emotional Dissonance and
Co-worker Support in Predicting Intention to Leave the
Organization
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Support was also found for the multilevel interaction
hypothesis, but only in predicting organizational devi-
ance, thus confirming Hypothesis 3, but only partially
(H3b). Organizational support at organizational level
moderated the relationship between emotional disso-
nance and organizational deviance. Thus, employees,
who experience emotional dissonance, show higher
levels of organizational deviance in organizations with
low organizational support compared to those with
high organizational support. In fact, in organizations
with high organizational support, employees who expe-
rience emotional dissonance do not show organiza-
tional deviance independently of levels of perceived
emotional dissonance (figure 5).
Finally, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Results show
that the combination of organizational and co-worker
support do not moderate the relationship between emo-
tional dissonance and employees’ outcomes.
In conclusion, low levels of co-worker support seem
to be determinant in the relationship between emotional
dissonance and employee job satisfaction, organiza-
tional deviance, and intention to leave the organization.
However, organizational support is only key in the
relationship between emotional dissonance and organi-
zational deviance. An impairment in employees’ work
attitudes and behaviors is experienced when they per-
ceive emotional dissonance and low levels of co-worker
support, and organizational support for organizational
deviance. Finally, the presence of both types of social
support do not improve employees’ outcomes.
Discussion
The present study contributes to previous research on
emotional dissonance in several points. The first contri-
tionship between emotional dissonance and employees’
outcomes. More specifically, the first hypothesis, which
states that emotional dissonance is related to lower
levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of organiza-
tional deviance and intention to leave the organization,
was supported. Therefore, service employees who were
and reported more deviant behaviors and intention to
leave the organization than employees who did not
experience emotional dissonance. These results are con-
gruent with the general literature on emotion at work:
Having to regulate their emotions may be especially
stressful and detrimental to employees’ health and
ative consequences for employees (Abraham, 1999a;
Molino et al., 2016).
The second contribution of our study was to show the
buffer effect of social support from different sources (and
levels) on the emotional dissonance-outcomes

5 this threat (loss or not expected return of resources),
Low organizational
support
High
Organizational deviance
4
organizational
support
3
2
1 two important sources into account: the co-workers and
Low emotional High emotional
dissonance dissonance
Figure 5. Interaction between Emotional Dissonance and
Organizational Support in Predicting Organizational Deviance
relationship. Hypothesis 2 was confirmed since signifi-
cant interaction terms between emotional dissonance and
co-worker support was found in the prediction of all
outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational deviance,
and intention to leave the organization). However, the
cross-level interaction between emotional dissonance and
organizational support only explained organizational
deviance (Hypothesis 3b). Thus, our results evidenced
that co-worker support is critical in moderating the harm-
ful outcomes of emotional dissonance in general. How-
ever, organizational support only buffered the negative
relationship between emotional dissonance and organi-
zational deviance. Those employees who worked in orga-
nizations that provided support to their employees
presented fewer deviant behaviors when experiencing
emotional dissonance than those who worked in organi-
zations with low support. These results evidence a wider
buffer effect of co-worker support on employees’ out-
comes compared to organizational support that only
buffered the effect on an organizational deviance. Follow-
ing the notion of resource appraisal (Hobfoll, 2001; Hob-
foll & Kay 2007) within the COR model, that suggests the
resource (e.g., source of support) must match the stressor,
it can be plausible that feeling support from co-workers in
facing the stress that produced the requirement to express
emotions that are not genuinely felt in a situation, can
have a global effect on outcomes. However, feeling the
organization support does not affect the most individual
outcomes such as job satisfaction and intention to leave,
but yes in carrying out behaviors that are not beneficial to
the organization. It seems that organizational support
buffer the negative effect of emotional dissonance on
employees’ outcomes with organizational nature.
Overall, these results were congruent with COR
model (Hobfoll, 1989). Emotional dissonance lead to a
depletion of the individuals’ energy, and in the face of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Emotional Dissonance, Outcomes & Social Support 9
employees are in a stress situation which could lead to
impairment in attitudes and behaviors, such as low level
of job satisfaction, and high levels of organizational
deviance and intention to leave. Furthermore, this paper
was congruent with previous literature on emotional
dissonance (Andela et al., 2018; Andela et al., 2016; Kim
et al., 2019; Pugh et al., 2010; van Dijk & Kirk, 2007; Zapf,
2002; Zito et al., 2018), and it follows along the lines of
other research (i.e., Kim & Choi, 2018; Kim et al., 2019;
Scott et al., 2014) that demonstrated the importance of
treating different sources of social support indepen-
dently, and their different effects. In this case, we took
the organization.
Special attention should be paid to Hypothesis
4 because the moderation effect of the combination of
both types of support was not significant. Our results
evidence that whether there is one type of social support
is enough to mitigate the detrimental relationship
between emotional dissonance and employees’ out-
comes (i.e., co-worker support). The combination of dif-
ferent types of social support do not help employees to
cope with emotional dissonance and their resources loss.
In conclusion, the present research showed that social
support is relevant when coping with work stressors
such as emotional dissonance. However, in contrast to
our initial assumption, one kind of social support is
enough to ameliorate the negative effect of a work
stressor, having co-worker support a wider effect on
employees’ reactions. So, the most important thing is
for employees to feel supported in their workplaces by
their co-workers. A combination of support from differ-
ent sources does not significantly ameliorate the detri-
mental effect of emotional dissonance on employees’
reactions. However, we can also conclude that for
explicit behaviors, such as organizational deviance, orga-
nizational support at organizational level can ameliorate
the harmful effects of emotional dissonance.
Finally, the third contribution refers to adopt a multi-
level perspective in the research on emotional disso-
nance. More specifically, this study provides additional
evidence to the existing literature on various aspects. On
the one hand, it adds to the statement about the need to
adopt a multilevel approach in the study of emotional
dissonance (Imose & Finkelstein, 2018). On the other
hand, it supports the incipient research that proposes
the conceptualization of organizational support as a col-
lective phenomenon as a stress buffer (Bliese & Castro,
2000; Halbesleben, 2006; Wallace et al., 2009). Our study
follows Carrasco et al.’s (2014) assertion, which states
that even though emotional dissonance is an individual
phenomenon, it can be influenced by contextual or envi-
ronmental factors, which must be take into account to a
better know this stressful phenomenon.
 10 B. Sora & M. Vera
Despite contribution of this study, it also presents
some limitations. First, it is important to highlight that
this study is cross-sectional; therefore, causal relation-
ships cannot be inferred. Longitudinal research is
needed to deal with this issue. Second, our data collec-
tion method was based on a convenience sampling. This
method may limit the extrapolation of results. However,
as in other works (e.g., Bakker et al., 2019), it is not likely
that this threat the validity of our results. It seems more
probable that studied variables and their relationships
are similar in other samples. Third, all the variables were
measured by self-reported measures; therefore, the
results may be influenced by common method variance.
However, the results of Harman’s single-factor test
revealed that common method variance was not neces-
sarily a serious deficiency in this dataset. Future
research should consider including other external or
more objective source of data. In fact, it is already pos-
sible to find studies that collect data from different
sources beyond self-reported measures (e.g., Krannitz
et al., 2015; Bakker et al., 2019). So, future research could,
for instance, collect the common perception of organi-
zational support in a more objective way, such as based
on a referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998).
This study had two main theoretical implications. It
empirically tested the relationship between emotional
dissonance and job satisfaction, organizational devi-
ance, and intention to leave the organization. Moreover,
these relationships were moderated by co-worker sup-
port, and organizational support, in the case of behav-
ioral deviance. These two findings are crucial for the
emotional dissonance literature because they empiri-
cally relate different organizational behaviors: When
an employee experiences emotional dissonance, s/he
is more likely to behave contrary to the organization’s
norms, thus having the potential to harm the organiza-
tion or even the intention to leave the organization. For
this reason, this paper has serious practical implications.
As Zapf (2002) stressed, there is sufficient evidence
that emotions, and particularly emotional dissonance,
in organizations are an important issue, and that the
associated negative effects on employees cannot be
ignored. This research shows how important support
is, taking into account its source. Co-worker support
have a relevant moderating buffering role in the negative
effects of emotional dissonance, in general, and organi-
zational support at organizational level in organizational
deviance. Also, our results, according to Roczniewska
et al. (2020), evidence the necessity of considering the
different levels and planes at which social job resources
operate to better know the complexity of work phenom-
ena at multiple levels and to design interventions that
target the right level of the environment. On this point, it
is important to remember that emotional work, and
therefore, the possibility of suffering emotional
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
dissonance, is not minimal. Moreover, special attention
should be paid to the negative behaviors that this paper
has analyzed, that is: Organizational deviance and
intention to leave, both of which are especially harm-
ful behaviors within the organization. It seems
necessary to understand what kinds of processes lead
employees to engage in these kinds of behaviors and
amend them. In this case, we have shown that:
(a) Emotional dissonance has a positive impact on these
processes; and (b) support has a moderating role in this
association.
Therefore, from a practical viewpoint, identifying
which sources of social support are more beneficial for
services employees is likely to be worthwhile for work-
place interventions. We suggest that organizations
implement better support systems within their depart-
ments to protect their employees from suffering the
negative effects of emotional dissonance. This kind of
support can come from careful and planned organiza-
tional strategies (such as having a good family-work
reconciliation program), or from a positive climate
where co-workers help each other and fulfil the values
of fellowship within the organization.
More research is necessary with more sophisticated
study designs, in order to further develop this interest-
ing field. For instance, it would be interesting to analyze
whether the role played by supervisor support would
behave in the same way as other sources of support. Are
there other potential sources of support, such as family,
that ameliorate the effects of emotional dissonance?
Moreover, it is also important to analyze other protec-
tive variables within organizations that can work along-
side support to reduce the harmful effects of emotional
dissonance.
References
Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations:
Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 19, 137-146. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437739810210185
Abraham, R. (1999a). The impact of emotional dissonance on
organizational commitment and intention to turnover. The
Journal of Psychology, 133, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223989909599754
Abraham, R. (1999b). Emotional dissonance in organizations:
Conceptualizating the roles of self-esteem and job-induced
tension. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20,
18–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739910251152
Akgunduz, Y., & Eryilmaz, G. (2018). Does turnover intention
mediate the effects of job insecurity and co-worker support
on social loafing? International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 68, 41–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhm.2017.09.010
Alrawadieh, Z., Cetin, G., Dincer, M. Z., & Istanbullu Dincer,
F. (2020). The impact of emotional dissonance on quality of
work life and life satisfaction of tour guides. The Service

Industries Journal, 40, 50–64. http://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069.2019.1590554
Andela, M., Truchot, D., & van der Doef, M. (2016). Job
stressors and burnout in hospitals: The mediating role of
emotional dissonance. International Journal of Stress, 23,
298–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000013
Andela, M., Truchot, D., & Huguenotte, V. (2018). Job
demands, emotional dissonance and elderly abuse: The
moderating role of organizational resources. Journal of Elder
Abuse & Neglect, 30(5), 368–384. http://doi.org/10.1080/
08946566.2018.1514343
Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., & Miller, L. R. (2012). Advancing
organizational support theory into the twenty-first century
world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2),
123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3
Bakker, A. B., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., &
Antino, M. (2019). Ripple effects of surface acting: A diary
study among dual-earner couples. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 22, Article E7. https://doi.org/10.1017/
sjp.2019.6
Bechtoldt, M. N., Welk, C., Zapf, D., & Hartig, J. (2007). Main
and moderating effects of self-control, organizational justice,
and emotional labour on counterproductive behavior at
work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
16, 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701662618
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a
measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-
independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381).
Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload
and organizational support: Multilevel evidence of the
importance of support. Work & Stress, 14, 65–73. https://
doi.org/10.1080/026783700417230
Brough, P., Drummond, S., & Biggs, A. (2018). Job support,
coping, and control: Assessment of simultaneous impacts
within the occupational stress process. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 23(2), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ocp0000074
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing
Structural Equation Models (pp.136–162). Sage.
Carrasco, H., Martínez-Tur, V., Moliner, C., Peiró, J. M., &
Ramis, C. (2014). Linking emotional dissonance and service
climate to well-being at work: A cross-level analysis.
Universitas Psychologica, 13(3), 947–960. http://doi.org/
10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-3.leds
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.83.2.234
Cheung, F. Y. L., & Cheung, R. Y.-H. (2013). Effect of emotional
dissonance on organizational citizenship behavior: Testing
the stressor-strain-outcome model. The Journal of Psychology:
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Emotional Dissonance, Outcomes & Social Support 11
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 147(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00223980.2012.676576
Cheung, F., & Tang, C. (2010). The influence of emotional
dissonance on subjective health and job satisfaction: Testing
the stress–strain–outcome model. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 40, 3192–3217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2010.00697.x
Cohen, J. (1992). Stress, social support, and disorder. In H.O. F.
Veiel & U. Baumann (Eds.), The meaning and measurement of
social support (pp. 109–124). Hemisphere.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the
buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.98.2.310
Diamond, L. K. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of emotional
dissonance: Understanding the relationships among personality,
emotional dissonance, job satisfaction, intention to quit and job
performance (Paper 2856) (Published doctoral dissertation),
University or South Florida. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/
etd/2856
Domagalski, T. A. (1999). Emotion in organizations: Main
currents. Human Relations, 52, 833–852. http://doi.org/
10.1177/001872679905200607
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990).
Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.75.1.51
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 200–507. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.71.3.500
Eurofound (2019). Working conditions and workers’ health.
Publications Office of the European Union. https://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_
publication/field_ef_document/ef18041en.pdf
European Comission (2016). European semester thematic
factsheet: Services. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/
files/european-semester_thematic-factsheet_services_
en.pdf
Giardini, A., & Frese, M. (2006). Reducing the negative effects
of emotion work in service occupations: Emotional
competence as a psychological resource. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 63–75. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.63
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When the show must go on: Surface
acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional
exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96. http://doi.org/10.5465/
30040678
Greenglass, E. R. (2000, August). Interpersonal factors, coping
and gender: Implications for health. Paper presented at the First
Asian Congress of Health Psychology and Culture. Tokyo.
Japan.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the
dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Guchait, P., Paşamehmetoğlu, A., & Dawson, M. (2014).
Perceived supervisor and co-worker support for error
 12 B. Sora & M. Vera
management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and
service recovery performance. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 41, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhm.2014.04.009
Halbesleben, J. R. (2006). Sources of social support and
burnout: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources
model. Journal of applied Psychology, 91, 1134–1145. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134
Heuven, E., & Bakker, A. (2003). Emotional dissonance and
burnout among cabin attendants. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 81–100. http://doi.org/
10.1080/13594320344000039
Himle, D. P., Jarayatne, S., & Thyness, P. A. (1989). The
buffering effects of four types of supervisory support on
work stress. Administration in Social Work, 13, 19–34. https://
doi.org/10.1300/j147v13n01_02
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new
attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologists, 44,
513–524. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and
the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation
of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337–421. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990).
Conservation of social resources: Social support resource
theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4),
465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590074004
Hobfoll, S. E. & Kay, J. S. (2007). Conservation of Resources
Theory. In The Encyclopedia of Stress, 2nd ed. Elsevier.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. University of
California Press.
Hofmann, V., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The impact of
emotional labor on employees’ work-life balance
perception and commitment: A study in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65,
47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.003
Imose, R. A., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2018). A multilevel
theoretical framework integrating diversity and emotional
labor. Group & Organization Management, 43(5), 718–751.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118793549
Indregard, A.-M. R., Knardahl, S., & Nielsen, M. B. (2018).
Emotional dissonance, mental health complaints, and
sickness absence among health-and social workers. The
moderating role of self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00592
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2018). Informe del
mercado de trabajo estatal. Catálogo general de publicaciones
de la Administración General del Estado. http://
www.sepe.es/contenidos/observatorio/mercado_trabajo/
3017-1.pdf
Jones, B., Flynn, D. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Perception of
support from the organization in relation to work stress,
satisfaction, and commitment. In S. L. Sauter & L. R. Murphy
(Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 41–52).
American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/
10.1037/10173-002
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural
equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
JungHoon, J. L., & Chihyung, M. O. (2014). Understanding
hotel employees’ service sabotage: Emotional labor
perspective based on conservation of resources theory.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 176–187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.014
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., &
Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in role
conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.
Kim, C. R., & Choi, J. S. (2018). Mediating effects of burnout
and moderating effects of organizational support on the
relationship between emotional dissonance and job
satisfaction in dental hygienists. Journal of Korean Society of
Dental Hygiene, 18(4), 489–499.
Kim, C.-R., Donnelly, L. R., & Choi, J.-S. (2019). Moderating
effects of wage satisfaction and social organizational support
on the relationship between emotional dissonance and
turnover intention among Korean dental hygienists. Medico-
Legal Update, 19(1), 393–399. http://doi.org/10.5958/0974-
1283.2019.00075.6
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011).
Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta‐
analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family‐
specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel
Psychology, 64, 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2011.01211.x
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach
to theory and research in organizations: Contextual,
temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions
(pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.
Krannitz, M. A., Grandey, A. A., Liu, S., & Almeida, D. A.
(2015). Workplace surface acting and marital partner
discontent: Anxiety and exhaustion spillover mechanisms.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 314–325.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038763
Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions
of emotional labor: The heart of Hochschild’s work.
Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 8–49. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141002
Kundu, S. C., & Gaba, N. (2017). Emotional dissonance and
organizational deviance: The mediating role of intention to
quit. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic
Research, 15(4), 485–499.
Kwak, H., McNeeley, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2018). Emotional labor,
role characteristics, and police officer burnout in South
Korea: The mediating effect of emotional dissonance. Police
Quarterly, 21(2), 223–249. http://doi.org/10.1177/
1098611118757230
Li, Y., Mehmood, K., Zhang, X., & Crossin, C. M. (2019). A
multilevel study of leaders’ emotional labor on servant
leadership and job satisfaction. Emotions and Leadership
Research on Emotion in Organizations, 15, 47–67. http://
doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120190000015008
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Rand McNally.
Maertz, C. P., Jr., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen,
D. G. (2007). The effects of perceived organizational support

and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28, 1059–1075. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.472
Malott, J. M., Glasgow, R. E., O'Neill, H. K., & Klesges, R. C.
(1984). Co-worker social support in a worksite smoking
control program. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17,
485–495. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1984.17-485
Mishra, S. K., & Kumar, K. K. (2016). Minimizing the cost of
emotional dissonance at work: A multi-sample analysis.
Management Decision, 54(4), 778–795. http://doi.org/
10.1108/MD-06-2015-0222
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship
between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0021-9010.62.2.237
Molino, M., Emanuel, F., Zito, M., Ghislieri, C., Colombo, L.,
& Cortese, C. G. (2016). Inbound call centers and
emotional dissonance in the Job Demands – Resources
Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.01133
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in
the workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 257–274.
Newman, A., Thanacoody, R., & Hui, W. (2012). The effects of
perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor
support and intra-organizational network resources on
turnover intentions. A study of Chinese employees in
multinational enterprises. Personnel Review, 41, 56–72.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211189947
O’Brien, E., & Linehan, C. (2019). Problematizing the
authentic self in conceptualizations of emotional dissonance.
Human Relations, 72(9), 1530–1556. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0018726718809166
Ortiz-Bonnín, S., García-Buades, M. E., Caballer, A., & Zapf,
D. (2016). Supportive climate and its protective role in the
emotion rule dissonance–emotional exhaustion relationship.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(3), 125–133. http://
doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000160
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Linear mixed-effects
models: Basic concepts and examples. In Mixed-effects models
in S and S-Plus. Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-0318-1_1
Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement.
International Journal of Manpower, 18, 301–558. http://
doi.org/10.1108/01437729710182260
Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2010). Willing
and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link
between emotional dissonance and employee well-being.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 377 –390 https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0021395
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived
organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0021-9010.87.4.698
Roczniewska, M., Richter, A., Hasson, H., & Schwarz, U. V. T.
(2020). Predicting sustainable employability in Swedish
healthcare: The complexity of social job resources.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(4), 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041200
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29
Emotional Dissonance, Outcomes & Social Support 13
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational
research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research
in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 7, 1–37.
Scott, K. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Schippers, M., Purvis, R. L., &
Cruz, K. S. (2014). Co-worker exclusion and employee
outcomes: An investigation of the moderating roles of
perceived organizational and social support. Journal of
Management Studies, 51, 1235–1256. http://doi.org/10.1111/
joms.12099
Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (2000). The interactive effect of job
involvement and organizational commitment on job
turnover revisited: A note on the mediating role of turnover
intention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 247–252.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00194
Sora, B., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2011). Consecuencias de
la inseguridad laboral. El papel modulador del apoyo
organizacional desde una perspectiva multinivel
[Consequences of job insecurity. The moderator role of
organizational support from a multilevel perspective].
Psicothema, 23, 394–400.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of
voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between
counterproductive work behavior and organizational
citizenship behavior. Human resource management
review, 12, 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822
(02)00049-9
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2007).
How organizational standards and co-worker support
improve restaurant service. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 48, 370–379. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0010880407300158
Taxer, J. L., & Frenzel, A. C. (2018). Inauthentic expressions of
enthusiasm: Exploring the cost of emotional dissonance in
teachers. Learning and Instruction, 53, 74–88. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.008
van Dijk, P. A., & Kirk, A. (2007). Being somebody else:
Emotional labor and emotional dissonance in the context of
the service experience at a heritage tourism site. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14, 157–169. https://
doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.14.2.157
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., &
Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based performance,
and the moderating influence of organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 254–262. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0013090
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of
social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334. https://doi.org/
10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being:
A review of the literature and some conceptual
considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12,
237–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(02)00048-7
Zapf, D., & Holz, M. (2006). On the positive and negative
effects of emotion work in organizations. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 1–28. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13594320500412199
 14 B. Sora & M. Vera

Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999).
Emotion work as a source of stress. The concept and
development of an instrument. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 371–400. https://doi.org/
10.1080/135943299398230
Zito, M., Emanuel, F., Molino, M., Cortese, C. G., Ghislieri,
C., & Colombo, L. (2018). Turnover intentions in a call center:
The role of emotional dissonance, job resources, and job
satisfaction. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0192126. http://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0192126

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Birmingham, on 22 Jul 2020 at 12:48:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.29