情绪心理学研究资料Personality and Emotional Performance

Personality and Emotional Performance: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Self-Monitoring Joyce E. Bono and Meredith A. Vey University of Minnesota Using an experimental design, the authors linked personality to performance on two emotional regulation tasks requiring the expression of either anger or enthusiasm. Across tasks, self- monitoring was associated with effective emotional performance. High self-monitors reported less stress and more deep acting than low self-monitors and did not experience elevated heart rate during emotional performance. The authors also examined affective traits, positing that emotional regulation would be less stressful for individuals who were asked to perform personality congruent emotions. As expected, individuals high on extraversion experienced elevated heart rates when asked to express personality incongruent emotions (i.e., anger). However, the asso- ciation between extraversion and emotional performance was not significantly different for the two types of emotional regulation (anger and enthusiasm). Neuroticism was associated with increased heart rate and poor performance in both tasks. Overall, these data provide partial support for our personality congruency hypotheses and suggest that personality plays an impor- tant role in effective emotional performance. Keywords: emotional regulation, self-monitoring, extraversion, neuroticism, job performance Although there is a long research tradition in psy- chology focused on the antecedents and conse- quences of emotional regulation (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Goffman, 1959), it is only in the past decade or two that organizational researchers have begun to focus on the role of emotions and emotional regulation at work (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Brief & Weiss, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1997). Considerable interest in emotional regulation at work was generated by Hochschild’s (1983) seminal work on emotional labor, defined as, “the psychological processes necessary to regulate organizationally de- sired emotions” (Zapf, 2002, p. 239). Building on Hochschild’s work, numerous empirical studies have focused on the antecedents (e.g., organizational dis- play rules) and consequences (e.g., stress, burnout, and emotional exhaustion) of emotional regulation at work. Two general assumptions guiding this research are that a) organizations and occupations place de- mands on employees to express certain emotions, as a part of formal or informal job requirements; and b) when employees express emotions that are not gen- uinely felt or experienced, they suffer negative psy- chological consequences, including stress, burnout, and emotional exhaustion. Indeed, there is evidence from lab studies that regulating felt emotions is as- sociated with cardiovascular system activation (Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997) and evidence from field studies that employees who perceive organiza- tional demands to express required emotions and those who report regulating their emotions at work, also tend to report high levels of stress, emotional exhaustion (e.g., Pugliesi, 1999; Totterdell & Holman, 2003; Wharton, 1993), and increased phys- ical complaints (Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000). Although some studies (Abraham, 1998; Diefendorff & Richard, 2003) have considered the role of personality in emotional regulation, little is known about how personality traits affect successful performance on emotional regulation tasks. An im- portant practical question from the standpoint of cus- tomer service organizations is “Who can best manage their emotions to produce the required emotional expression without appearing insincere or experienc- ing increased stress?” The purpose of our study is to address this gap in the literature. First, we examine the role of personality and the personality-congru- Joyce E. Bono and Meredith A. Vey, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota. Meredith A. Vey is now at Liberty Mutual Group. This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-aid of Research, University of Minnesota. We thank David Motanya, Jessica Dzieweczynski, Angie Hartman, Amber Liepold, Crystal Lowry, Sarah Nowak, Cara Eickhold, and Joshua Johnson for their time and commitment to this research. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Joyce E. Bono, Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Email: jbono@umn.edu Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2007, Vol. 12, No. 2, 177–192 Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 1076-8998/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.177 177 ency of required emotional displays in the adoption of self-regulatory strategies (such as deep and surface acting) and the experience of physiological and psy- chological reactions (such as increased heart-rate and perceived stress). Second, we examine the role of personality in performance of emotional regulation tasks. Theoretically, we expect that individuals who are asked to express personality-congruent emotions (e.g., enthusiasm for extraverts) will be more effec- tive performers. We also posit an association between trait-linked tendencies for self-regulation (e.g., self- monitoring) and effective emotional performance. We expect that personality will be linked to effective emotional performance, in part, because a) individu- als differ in the strategies they use to regulate their emotions, and b) individuals vary in their reactions emotional regulation demands. Figure 1 presents an overall model of the associations examined in this study. Emotional Regulation at Work For nearly 50 years, researchers have explored reasons why people regulate their emotions at work. As early as 1959, Goffman suggested that individuals strategically manage their expressed emotions to pro- mote their own interests in social relationships, in- cluding work relationships. Rafaeli and Sutton (1989) extended Goffman’s work, pointing out that employees manipulate emotional displays, not only to promote their own interests, but also to promote the interests of others (e.g., customers, clients, and coworkers). Hochschild (1979) suggested that orga- nizations and jobs have rules about the appropriate display of emotions (i.e., display rules) and Sutton (1991) demonstrated the processes by which employ- ees are selected, socialized, and rewarded for ex- pressing role-required emotions. Research supports the notion that employees are aware of organizational norms and rules for emotional displays (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). Whereas employees may be seeking social and organizational rewards for expressing role-required emotions, lab and field studies are consistent in link- ing emotional regulation to negative physiological and psychological outcomes for employees. Bono and Vey’s (2005) meta-analysis of field studies indi- cated that emotional labor is positively associated with emotional exhaustion, burnout, stress, and even physical complaints. Laboratory studies have focused primarily on negative outcomes of suppressing emo- tions. For example, Gross and Levenson (1997) re- ported that suppressing emotions led to increased activation of the cardiovascular system. Additionally, Gross’ (2002) review noted a variety of social, affec- tive, and cognitive consequences of emotional regu- lation, including decreases in memory and less satis- fying social interactions. Personality - Self-Monitoring - Extraversion - Neuroticism Reactions to Emotional Labor -Stress -Heart Rate Emotional Performance - Overall Effectiveness - Emotional Expression - Genuineness Emotional Regulation Strategies -Surface Acting -Deep Acting Personality Congruency of Required Emotions - Anger Required - Enthusiasm Required Figure 1. Overall model linking personality and emotional performance. 178 BONO AND VEY To better understand how employees approach emotional regulation and whether differences in such approaches might affect psychological and physio- logical outcomes, some researchers have focused on the self-regulatory strategies individuals use to man- age emotions. Grandey (2003) suggested that when employees manage their emotions at work, they choose from two strategies. Employees who use deep acting attempt to modify their feelings or emotions to meet the demands of the situation. In contrast, em- ployees who choose surface acting do not attempt to change their own emotional state. Rather, they dis- play the outward expression of the required emotion, which can create dissonance between their felt and expressed emotions. Although both emotional regu- lation strategies are effortful, surface acting— because it does not involve authentic self-expression (e.g., Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997) and because it requires suppressing the display of felt emotions (e.g., Gross & Levenson, 1993)—has more negative consequences for the individual. Hochshild (1983) suggested that dissonance between felt and expressed emotions would generate feelings of sep- aration from self, and John and Gross (2004) re- viewed experimental research in support of her as- sertion. They report that “healthier patterns of affect, social functioning, and well being” (p. 1301) are linked to emotional regulation for individuals who change the way they think about an emotional event (e.g., deep acting), as compared to individuals who change only their behaviors (e.g., surface acting). In the organizational literature, surface acting has also been linked to “breaking character” during emotional performance on the job (Grandey, 2003), decreased feelings of authenticity (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002), and depersonalization (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). Emotional Performance There are two types of studies linking emotional regulation to performance; one links employees’ emotional expressions to customer service (Pugh, 2001; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989) and the other links self-regulatory strategy to emotional expressions (Grandey, 2003). Results of the Grandey (2003) study reveal that when employees deep act, they received more positive ratings on the warmth and friendliness of their service interactions. In contrast, employees who engaged only in surface acting were rated negatively and were more likely to reveal neg- ative reactions to customers (Grandey, 2003). Fur- thermore, consistent with findings of laboratory stud- ies reviewed by Gross and colleagues (in press), employees who reported surface acting also reported more stress and displayed more negative reactions to customers. The focus of our study is on emotional perfor- mance, which we define as effective, genuine expres- sion of a role-required emotion. Most research in the organizational literature deals with organizational re- quirements for the expression of positive emotions (see Sutton, 1991, for an exception). We add to existing research by examining emotional perfor- mance in job roles that require either the expression of positive emotions (e.g., customer service) or the expression of negative emotions (e.g., bill collec- tion). We also extend existing emotional labor re- search by including a physiological measure (i.e., heart rate) in our study, allowing us to examine both the effects of emotional performance on individuals’ reports of experienced stress and exhaustion and their cardiac responses to emotional performance. Al- though some existing laboratory research has linked emotional regulation to cardiac arousal, the role of personality in cardiac responses to emotional regula- tion has not been examined. Indeed, the use of phys- iological stress measures in organizational research has been criticized for ignoring both stable factors (e.g., personality traits) and transitory influences (e.g., emotional regulation demands; see Fried, Rowland, & Ferris, 1984). Because the link between stress and heart rate reported in the literature is mod- est (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996, for a review) and the cardiac system is responsive to both challenges and threats (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999), we include heart rate in our study on an exploratory basis. The Role of Personality in Emotional Labor There are several theoretical reasons to link per- sonality to emotional regulation. First, there may be individual differences in employees’ willingness and ability to monitor their emotions. Second, personality may influence employees’ choice of self-regulatory strategy, affecting decisions about whether to engage in deep or surface acting. Third, personality may influence the extent to which emotional regulation leads to feelings of stress and cardiac arousal. Fi- nally, the extent to which emotional regulation de- mands tap into individuals’ trait congruent emotions is expected to affect self-regulatory strategies, reac- tions to emotional labor demands, and emotional performance. 179EMOTIONAL PERFORMANCE Trait-Behavior Congruence Theory and empirical research suggest that indi- viduals may experience less stress when engaging in activities that are personality congruent. Moskowitz & Coˆte´’s (1995) behavioral concordance model pre- dicts that individuals will experience positive mood states when they behave in a trait-congruent fashion. Tests of the behavioral concordance model (Coˆte´ & Moskowitz, 1998) were generally supportive, reveal- ing that when individuals engaged in trait-concordant behavior they experienced more positive affect than when they engaged in trait-inconsistent behavior. For example, individuals low on dominance reported a more positive mood when they were behaving sub- missively than when they were taking charge. Little’s (2000) free trait theory also deals with personality congruent behavior, suggesting that “pro- tractedly acting ‘out of character’. . . induces strain that can exact costs in well-being” (p. 96). Little suggests that individuals sometimes act in a trait- inconsistent manner in the pursuit of personal or career goals. For example, an introverted professor might engage in personality consistent behaviors when conducting research activities, such as analyz- ing data or writing, but might choose to engage in personality inconsistent behaviors (i.e., extraverted behaviors) when engaging in the teaching compo- nents of his or her job role. More relevant to our study, an introverted customer service representative might express enthusiasm with customers in compli- ance with organizational expectations for enthusiastic customer service. Free trait theory suggests that there are costs to engaging in personality incongruent be- haviors, including the experience of stress in the short run and possible declines in mental and physical health in the long run. Applying trait-behavior congruency theories to emo- tional regulation at work, it seems plausible that the negative effects of emotional regulation (e.g., stress, burnout) may be stronger for some individuals that others depending on the extent to there is a match (or mismatch) between the employee’s personality and job or organizational demands for emotional expression. For example, organizational demands for enthusiastic responses to customers may be less stressful for extra- verts, for whom the expression of enthusiasm is a trait consistent behavior, than for introverts. Extraversion Given that organizations tend to value the expres- sion of positive emotions (Shaubroek & Jones, 2000), extraverts may be advantaged when it comes to emo- tional regulation. Although there is some debate about the core dimensions of extraversion (e.g., re- ward sensitivity: Lucas, Deiner, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000; or sociability: Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002), there is general agreement that the experience and expression of positive emotions is at the core of extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997). Therefore, when extraverts are faced with emotional regulation demands that call for enthusiasm, they should be able to draw on past experiences and elicit the required positive emotion, allowing them to both experience and express genuine enthusiasm. Individuals who score high on extraversion may have greater ability than introverts to respond to organizational demands for positive emotions by deep acting. Furthermore, trait-behavior congruence theories suggest that indi- viduals who score high on extraversion will experi- ence less distress when asked to express enthusiasm than would low scorers. Existing research on extraversion also suggests that extraverts may be more willing and able to engage in positive emotions on demand. In a labora- tory study, Larson and Ketelaar (1991) attempted to induce positive mood. Consistent with their expecta- tions, they found a stronger positive mood effect in extraverts than in introverts. A review by Wilson (1981) reports that extraverts are more open to social influences, suggesting they may also be more willing to engage in the emotions prescribed by their job roles. Furthermore, extraverts may have the ability to better regulate their emotional expressions, as they have been found to be better at communicating emo- tions (Wilson, 1981). Given the link between extraversion and the expe- rience and expression of positive emotions, we ex- pect that Hypothesis 1a (H1a): The link between extra- version and deep and surface acting varies based on the personality congruency of emotional reg- ulation tasks. Specifically, individuals high on extraversion engage in more deep acting and less surface acting in tasks that require enthusi- asm, as compared to tasks requiring anger and irritability. Hypothesis 1b (H1b): The link between extra- version and stress varies based on the personal- ity congruency of emotional regulation tasks. Specifically, individuals high on extraversion experience less stress in tasks that require en- 180 BONO AND VEY thusiasm, as compared to tasks requiring anger and irritability. Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Extraversion is positively associated with performance in emotional regu- lation tasks that require enthusiasm, but not in tasks that require expressions of anger/irritation. Neuroticism Individuals high in neuroticism tend to experience more negative emotions, such as anger, sadness, and anxiety. Since organizations tend to value the expres- sion of positive emotions (Shaubroek & Jones, 2000), employees high in neuroticism are likely to perceive high demands for trait-inconsistent behavior. Indeed, Diefendorff and Richard (2003) reported that indi- viduals high in neuroticism, as compared to individ- uals low in neuroticism, perceived higher organiza- tional demands to suppress negative emotions. However, not all jobs require the expression of pos- itive emotions, and those with requirements for the expression of negative emotions (e.g., bill collectors; Sutton, 1991) may be easier for individuals high in neuroticism. Following our prior logic, based on trait-behavior congruence theories, we expect that when individuals high in neuroticism are asked to express anger and irritation, they will be able to draw on their past experiences in order to reproduce these emotions. Indeed, Larson and Ketelaar (1991) found that indi- viduals high in neuroticism were more responsive to a negative affect manipulation than were low scorers. Furthermore, regulating personality congruent emotions may also be less stressful, as Coˆte´ and Moskowitz (1998) reported that when individuals high in neuroticism engaged in trait congruent behav- iors, they experienced increased feelings of well be- ing. When faced with a role requiring the expression of enthusiasm, however, individual high in neuroti- cism may tend to express only the outward displays of the required positive emotion (surface acting). Such outward displays of a personality incongruent emotion may also require individuals high in neurot- icism to simultaneously suppress negative affect, which has been shown to be stressful (Gross & Lev- enson, 1997). We also expect that in