Emotional labor as emotion regulation investigated with ecological momentary assessment - a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This scoping review's aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of ecological momentary assessment (EMA)- based research on emotional labor (EL) as emotion regulation (ER). This includes an examination of the theoretical foundation this research builds on, how the hypothesized relationships are investigated using EMA methods as well as the studies' findings themselves. We built on the work of Grandey and Melloy (J Occup Health Psychol 22:407-22, 2004), who broadly distinguished between the two regulatory strategies of deep acting (DA) and surface acting (SA), embedded in a hierarchical model of emotional labor, as a guiding theory for structuring this review. METHODS: To be included, studies had to use EMA to measure SA or DA, with no restrictions regarding population and date of publication. The electronic databases CINAHL, PsycArticles, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched. Studies were included if they met the above criteria and were written in English or German. Out of 237 publications, 12 were chosen for this review. RESULTS: All studies were based on emotional labor theories, with Arlie Hochschild's theory being the most popular, followed by Alicia Grandey's emotional labor theory and its modifications (Grandey AA. Emotion Regulation in the Workplace: A New Way to Conceptualize Emotional Labor; Grandey AA. When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. 2003). The methodological quality of the studies varied greatly. The results of the studies indicate that SA is influenced by negative events, trait SA, service innovation and certain emotions, while DA is influenced by positive events and emotional intelligence. Emotional labor benefits the organization, e.g., by improving customer conflict handling, but also causes harm by increasing employee withdrawal behavior. For the employee, emotional labor results in more harm than benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The research area is still in its early stages and the findings are mostly consistent, but the small number of studies needs to be replicated to increase the reliability of the results. The lack of evidence for ertain hypotheses highlights the presence of unresolved relationships that require further exploration. We are only at the beginning of investigating emotional labor using ecological momentary assessment, and conducting more high-quality studies will significantly enhance our comprehension of emotional labor.

Psychosocial areas of worklife and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the potential relationship between psychosocial work factors from the Areas of Worklife (AW) model (workload, job control, social support, reward, fairness, and values) and chronic low back pain (CLBP; unspecific pain in the lumbar region lasting 3 months or longer). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of studies in Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL (1987 to 2018). Three authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of studies. In this meta-analysis, we pooled studies' effect sizes using a random-effects model approach and report sample size weighted mean Odds Ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Data from 18 studies (N = 19,572) was included in the analyses. We found no studies investigating associations between fairness or values and CLBP. CLBP was significantly positively related to workload (OR = 1.32) and significantly negatively related to overall job control (OR = 0.81), decision authority (OR = 0.72), and two measures of social support (ORs = 0.75 to 0.78), even in prospective studies. Skill discretion and reward did not significantly relate to CLBP. Moderation analyses revealed several variables (e.g., exposure time, mean age and sex) affecting these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support employees' workload, job control, and social support as predictors of CLBP. In this line, these work factors should be considered when developing programs to prevent chronic low back pain. Future studies should apply measures of CLBP that are more precise, and investigate the full areas of work life (AW) factors in combination.