i

EMOTIONAL FEEDBACK AND AMPLIFICATION IN SOCIAL INTERACTION

Tim Hallett

Indiana University

Hallett, Tim. 2003b. “Emotional Feedback and Amplification in Social Interaction.” The

Sociological Quarterly. 44, 4: 705-726.

Winner of the 2002 ASA Sociology of Emotions Graduate Student Paper Award

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4120729?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&&searchUri=%2Faction

%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq4%3D%26amp%3Bq1%3D%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND%26amp%3Bacc%3D

off%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bisbn%3D%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bq6%3D%26amp

%3Bq3%3D%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bf0%3Dau%26amp%3Bq2%

3D%26amp%3Bla%3D%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bq5%3D%26amp%3Bpt%3D%26amp%3Bq0

%3DTim%2BHallett%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3

Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bsd%3D%26amp%3Bed%3D%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall%26a

mp%3Bc3%3DAND

Direct all correspondence to Tim Hallett, Indiana University, Department of Sociology,

Ballantine Hall 744 Bloomington, Indiana 47405-6628 (email: hallett9indiana.edu).

ii

Emotional Feedback and Amplification in Social Interaction

Abstract

This article develops an interactive, theoretical model of emotional feedback and

amplification. Whereas the sociology of emotions typically examines how affect arises,

this article focuses on the aftermath of an evoked emotion as it evolves in ongoing

interaction. I argue that interactions serve as a stimulus to evoke emotional responses,

but as interactions continue, these interactions provide an additional stimulus that feeds

back into the initial emotion, amplifying it. I articulate two modes of emotional feedback

and amplification: spontaneous and managed. Spontaneous amplification is a by-product

of unplanned but continuous interactions. In contrast, managed amplification results

from purposeful interactions and can be initiated through either surface acting or deep

acting. The process of feedback and amplification is more likely under structural and

cultural conditions that facilitate ongoing interactions. An empirical elaboration of the

model is drawn from an ethnographic study of “TD’s Restaurant.” Examining how

feedback and amplification occur in different settings is an ongoing task for sociologists

interested in emotions, work and occupations, mental health, and social movements.

3

Emotional Feedback and Amplification in Social Interaction

How do emotions “blow up”? How does a small emotional response blossom into

a large one? While sociologists typically examine the social origins of emotions (Kemper

1978b; Hochschild 1979; Schott 1979; Thoits 1989), once we have started down an

emotional path, what happens next? How does an inkling of anger develop into a blind

rage? How does a little happiness evolve into bliss? To answer these questions, I turn to

interaction. I argue that interaction serves both as a stimulus to evoke emotional

responses, and as a conduit for “emotional feedback and amplification.” On the one

hand, interactions can arouse an emotional response, but as interactions continue, these

interactions serve as an additional stimulus, feeding back into emotions previously

aroused and amplifying them.

Psychophysiological approaches to emotions likewise identify a process of

feedback and amplification. These approaches suggest that internal drives trigger

physiologically related emotional responses, activating other responses that feed back into

and amplify the initial response (Tomkins 1962; 1980). However, whereas these studies

focus on physiological changes as the medium of feedback and amplification, I examine

social interaction as the medium. I stress how feedback and amplification occur

spontaneously in unplanned interactions, but also how surface (and deep) acting can be

used to manage ongoing interactions and the process of feedback and amplification.

These two modes of feedback and amplification (spontaneous and managed) are

embedded in organizational and cultural structures that facilitate the ongoing interactions

through which these processes occur.

4

To make the case for emotional feedback and amplification in social interaction, I

begin with a discussion of sociological literature that typically focuses on the initial

arousal of an emotion. In identifying the social origins of emotions, these works take an

important first step. However, creating a full genealogy of emotions requires that we take

a second step into ongoing interactions. Ongoing interactions provide the means for the

situational evolution of emotions, for the increasing development of emotions through a

process of feedback and amplification.

I provide an empirical elaboration of the emotional feedback and amplification

model based on ethnographic data from a study of “TD’s Restaurant.” After a

methodological discussion, the empirical section begins with an examination of the

different organizational structures at “TD’s Restaurant,” structures that affect the ongoing

interactions through which emotions are evoked and evolve. These data suggest that

interaction, emotional feedback, and amplification vary by the cultural and temporal

conditions of particular shifts. The servers of both the day and night shifts experience a

process of managed emotional feedback and amplification prefaced by surface acting with

customers (more frequent among the day shift). Servers on the evening shift also

experience a spontaneous form of feedback and amplification occurring through less

purposeful interactions with each other (a phenomenon lacking in the day shift).

THE SOCIAL EVOCATION OF EMOTIONS

Sociologists have long held an interest in emotions. Returning to classical theory,

Durkheim (1952; 1961) relates negative emotions of self-extinction and positive

5

emotions of collective effervescence to levels of social attachment. Marx (1978) argues

that capitalist relations of production create individual feelings of alienation. In the

modern era, Goffman (1955; 1956; 1956b; 1967) linked emotions to particular types of

interactions. While these examples do not constitute a systematic theory of emotions,

they point to the social components of emotions, a contrast to psychophysiological

understandings of emotions as instinctual responses to environmental stimuli (Darwin

1872; James and Lange 1922) or as internal libidinal drives (Freud 1959). Efforts to

integrate the social components of emotions into theoretical statements began in the late

1970s, and as in much of sociology, disagreements arose between constructionists and

positivists (Thoits 1989; Kemper 1990). Despite their differences, constructionists and

positivists both use their sociological gaze to study how emotions are evoked in social

life.

Most constructionists grant that emotions have a physiological component.

However, building upon Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic experiment connecting the

experience of physiological arousal with situated cognitions, constructionists emphasize

the sociocultural origins of emotions. In an early essay on the sociology of emotions,

Shott (1979: 1130) argues that emotions are evoked as individuals interpret and label

their feelings in accordance with cultural norms. To support her argument, Shott cites

observations of cross-cultural variance in emotions (Newman 1960; Averill 1976).

Like Shott, Hochschild (1975; 1979; 1981) recognizes the role of social norms in

the evocation of emotions. However, building on Goffman (1959), Hochschild

(Hochschild 1979, 1983, 1990) adds an interactive dimension, arguing that, in our

interactions with others, we labor to align our emotions with “feeling rules” outlining

6

how we ought to feel in a given situation. As such, we are not simply engaging in

impression management but also “emotion management,” and emotions appropriate to

the situation are evoked in the course of efforts to manage emotions (Hochschild 1979: p.

551). Research premised on emotion management is now widespread, particularly in

studies of medical fields (Smith and Kleinman 1989; James 1989; O’Brien 1994; Thoits

1996), but also in topics ranging from humor (Francis 1994) to rape trials (Konradi 1999).

Where the constructionist thrust on social norms, labeling, interaction, and

management allows for plasticity in emotions, positivists set greater limitations on

emotions while connecting them to specific causal conditions. According to Kemper

(1978a; 1978b; 1981; 1987), different kinds of power and status relationships create

distinct physiological responses, evoking specific emotions. Another causal model can be

found in affect control theory (Heise 1979; Smith-Lovin and Heise 1988), in which

emotions are seen as the consequences of sequences of events.

Despite their differences, constructionists and positivists both focus on the

evocation of emotions. Taken together, these works provide an important first step in

understanding the situated evolution of emotions. A full genealogy of an emotional

experience requires that we take a second step into the aftermath of an evoked emotion as

it relates to emotional feedback and amplification in ongoing interactions.

EMOTIONAL FEEDBACK AND AMPLIFICATION IN SOCIAL INTERACTION

In their study of organizational life, Rafaeli and Sutton cite a “feedback loop, in which

expressed emotions influence felt emotions.” (1989, pp. 13-14). Ironically, though theirs

7

is a study of organizational life, they turn to cognitive and physiological (rather than

social) mechanisms to explain this “feedback loop.” First, they cite the role of cognitive

dissonance (Festinger 1957). While dissonance matters in the initial evocation of an

emotion, other processes are involved as interactions unfold. Second, the authors offer a

physiological explanation that smiling and laughter increase the oxygenated blood flow to

the brain, causing feelings of exuberance (Zajonc 1985; Reeve 1997).

A more complex psychophysiological feedback mechanism is offered by Tomkins

(1962; 1980). Using the example of World War II pilots who did not use oxygen masks

and slowly experienced anoxic deprivation (in some cases dying with smiles on their

faces), Tomkins argues that, on their own, biological drives (such as breathing) do not

incite action. Only when anoxic deprivation is accompanied by the emotion of fear does

the drive to breath lead to action (Tomkins 1962, p. 6; Scheff 1973, p. 507). Drives

usually stimulate the physiological responses we call emotions, and these emotions feed

back into drives, amplifying the drive and motivating action.

These psychophysiological processes matter for our emotional experiences.

However, social processes also shape our emotions. Whereas psychophysiological

approaches focus on internal physiological changes as the medium of feedback and

amplification, I examine social interaction as the medium. On the one hand, interactions

are an emotional cue (Zurcher 1982), a stimulus interpreted according to the situation,

evoking an emotional response. However, interactions are also a conduit for feedback

and amplification: As interactions continue, they become an added stimulus, feeding

back into emotions aroused earlier, and amplifying them. The ongoing interactions that

8

provide the means for emotional feedback and amplification are themselves enabled and

constrained by the structural and cultural aspects of the situation.

In centering on interaction, I recognize that many of our interactions are

purposeful, or what Goffman (1961) has termed “focused,” a term that contributes to the

frequent rhetoric of emotion “management.” Yet emotions often have an undeniably

spontaneous existence (Flaherty 1992). Sometimes we bumble into interactions with

little purpose, but these interactions still have consequences for our emotions, and

feedback and amplification can occur in either spontaneous or managed interactions.

The theoretical value added of the second step of emotional feedback and

amplification is best understood though an example. Take this instance of spontaneous

feedback and amplification found in Katz’s (1999, p. 20) study of road rage:

Jan, who lives with her husband and two children in Orange County and works as

an athletic coach at a major university, is late to a practice as she drives her red

Corvette convertible with as stick shift along a curvy road in Palos Verdes. At a

stop sign, a fellow in front of her who is slow to depart irritates her. As she drives

behind him, she finds that he slows up. She waits for an opportunity to pass and

as they approach a long curve she downshifts forcefully to second, accelerates,

and pulls out into the lane of oncoming traffic, only to find that he speeds up,

preventing her from passing until they have driven in parallel around a long curve.

A few moments later, she stops her car, “dead in the road,” forcing him to stop

behind her. She walks briskly to his car, puts her head through his window and

yells, “You ASSHOLE! You could have killed me!!!” He responds with “Shut

9

up, you stupid CUNT!” Jan immediately “smacked him across the face.” After

speeding off, she “could not believe she hit the guy.” “That guy could have

chased me and pulled a gun on me and shot me.”

Katz aptly discusses the first step of an emotion’s development--how the interactional

stimulus of a slow driver in front of Jan creates irritation that is defined according to the

situation (late to practice), evoking a corporeal emotional response. However,

understanding how Jan’s irritation blooms into fury requires that we analyze the ongoing

interaction and the second step of emotional feedback and amplification. The first

sequence begins with the slow departure and the initial irritation. Next, Jan attempts to

pass the driver, but he speeds up—another stimulus that feeds back into Jan’s irritation,

amplifying it to the point where she stops her car “dead in the road,” to swear at the

driver. The driver responds with an explicative, yet another stimulus that feeds into and

amplifies Jan’s boiling emotions. Through this process of feedback and amplification,

Jan’s mild irritation has become a rage, and she even slaps the driver in the face,

completing the genealogy of her felt emotion.

Jan’s rage is blind, that is, she acts on her rage without thinking of the possible

consequences. Only after she is removed from the interaction does realize, “That guy

could have chased me and pulled a gun on me and shot me.” In no way is this interaction

purposefully managed. Instead, the emotion develops spontaneously.

Just as Jan’s emotions are being stimulated and amplified, so too are the other

driver’s emotions. We can imagine how Jan’s efforts to pass on a curvy road created

irritation in him, irritation that became amplified when Jan stopped to cuss him out. By

10

examining both sides of this interaction, we can understand how feedback and

amplification creates emotional contagion between actors (Collins 1990, p. 42). In this

way emotions have a recursive quality, continually acting back on themselves, and if the

feedback loop is not interrupted, the actor can become caught in what Scheff (1990) calls

a “feeling trap,” where emotions “spiral” on for long periods of time.

While this example is spontaneous, sometimes emotions and the process of

emotional feedback and amplification can be purposefully managed. Hochschild (1979,;

1983) identifies two types of emotion management through which emotions can be

purposefully evoked: surface acting and deep acting.1 Once evoked, these emotions can

be amplified by continued interactions.

Following Goffman (1959), Hochschild recognizes that one mode of emotion

management involves the outward production of expressions for the sake of emotionally

infused interactions. Hochschild labels these efforts to manipulate emotions through

impression management “surface acting.” Hocschild (1990, pp. 120-121) explains that,

through surface acting: “We consciously alter outward expressions of emotion in the

service of altering our inner feeling. Our mental focus is on our slumped shoulder, bowed

head, or drooping mouth.” In this tradition, Cahill and Eggleston (1994, p. 304) examine

how people in wheelchairs use surface acting to guard the emotions of others: “They

expressively mask their own emotions so as to manage others’. They cover their

embarrassment with good humor, relieving witnesses’ emotional discomfort.” Through

the emphasis on a surface “expressive mask,” this view places greater emphasis on the

image fostered in the mind of the audience as opposed to the self, an emphasis shared by

Goffman.2

11

What I want to stress in this discussion of surface acting is that it can be used to

purposely manage the first step of evoking an emotion. However, should the interaction

continue we move into a second step in which the ongoing interaction becomes an added

stimulus, feeding back into the emotion initiated by surface or deep acting and amplifying

it. Consider the following example from a waitress at a diner:

Sometimes I can put myself in a good mood, but if I go past the point of

retrieving, I just put on a fake persona, and I grit my teeth, I, I’ll go in the back,

grit my teeth, and just get through the day. It’s very easy for me to smile (flashes

a brilliant but fake smile); I don’t need any real emotions. I can be totally smiling

but still be bitter inside. But then it only takes one good customer to change my

mood, and then things start to get better.

Despite feeling “bitter inside,” as this waitress approaches a new table she puts on a “fake

persona,” that is, surface acting to cover her negative emotions. She uses her outwardly

expressed smile to control her interactions with subsequent customers, the first step

toward an emotional change. However, she takes a second step as she interacts with that

“one good customer.” Though prefaced by surface acting, ongoing interactions stimulate

further emotional responses, feeding back into and amplifying the emotional change

initiated by surface acting. Through the second step of feedback and amplification, what

began as an “act” to cover bitterness realizes itself as an emotional change, “and then

things start to get better.”

12

Moving beyond Goffman, Hochschild identifies a second mode of emotion

management that she labels “deep acting.” Where surface acting involves the

management of emotion from the “outside in,” deep acting involves management from

the “inside out” (Hochschild 1990, p. 220). For example, deep acting often involves

altering cognitions about a situation as a means to manipulate baseline feelings,

generating emotions to fit with feeling rules. In turn, these emotions serve a signal

function (Hochschild 1989), indicating a proper form of interaction. Consider the

following example from Tolich’s (1993, p. 373) study of supermarket clerks: “I can trick

my brain into believing something that might not be true. . . . I might say, ‘Well she has

had a hard day.’” This clerk works on his internal state of mind to suppress anger toward

a customer, creating an image that evokes a more positive set of emotions and signals a

line of interaction that matches company feeling rules.

The point is that deep acting (like surface acting) can be used purposefully to

manage the evocation of an emotion. However, as we move into ongoing interaction, we

move into the second step of feedback and amplification. Take an example from Pierce’s

(1995, p. 62) study of lawyers at a mock trial:

Before a cross-examination, Tom, one of the students, stood in the hallway with

one of the instructors trying to “psyche himself up to get mad.” He repeated over

and over to himself, “I hate it when witnesses lie to me. It makes me so mad!”

The teacher coached him to concentrate on that thought until Tom could actually

evoke the feeling of anger. . . In the actual cross-examination, each time the

witness made an inconsistent statement, Tom became more and more angry: “First

13

you told us you could see the burglar, now you say your vision was obstructed!

So, which is it, Mr. Jones?” The more irate he became, the more he intimidated

and confused the witness, who at last completely backed down and said, “I don’t

know” in response to every question.

Prior to the interaction, Tom turns inward, using deep acting to view the witness as a liar

in an effort to “psych himself up to get mad.” This first step of deep acting evokes an

emotional response that Tom uses to manage the cross-examination. Yet there is more

involved. As Tom continues to interact with the witness, we move into a second step in

which an evoked emotion evolves. Tom’s ongoing interaction with the witness serves as

an additional stimulus, feeding back into the anger first prompted by his deep acting,

amplifying the emotion: “each time the witness made an inconsistent statement, Tom

became more and more angry.” Through the process of feedback and amplification, the

emotion has blossomed into the anger Tom needs to break the witness.

To summarize, the social evocation of emotions, as identified by many

sociologists, provides an important first step in understanding the situated evolution of an

experienced emotion. However, to complete the genealogy of an emotion, we must take a

second step to consider how emotions develop beyond their initial arousal. I have argued

that when emotions extend into ongoing interactions, they undergo a process of emotional

feedback and amplification. Continued interactions provide an additional stimulus that

feeds back into the initial emotion, and amplifies it. One the one hand, this process can

occur spontaneously. That is, unplanned interactions can provide a stimulus for an

emotional response and, should the interaction continue, it serves as a medium for

14

feedback and amplification. However, the evolution of an emotion can also occur more

purposefully. That is, in using surface or deep acting in an effort to manage interactions,

one can gain a measure of control over the initial emotional stimulus. Then, as these

managed emotions are interjected into ongoing interactions, they can be amplified by the

interaction.

The key to emotional feedback and amplification, whether it is initiated

spontaneously or managed via surface or deep acting, is ongoing interaction. In the

examples used to elaborate this theoretical model, conditions that facilitate ongoing

interactions are in place. For example, in the mock trial example, the continued

interaction between the witness and the lawyer is enabled by the structure of court

proceedings in which lawyers have the right to dismiss witnesses, and by the

argumentative and confrontational culture of these proceedings. If the witness had the

right to abruptly dismiss himself it would have short-circuited the ongoing interaction

needed to develop the lawyer’s growing anger. Similarly, if the culture of court

proceedings were characterized by greater civility, the lawyer would have been unable to

continue the contentious interaction that fed into his growing anger. While the road rage

example is not characterized by as much organizational structure, neither is the ongoing

interaction is cut short by the presence of a nearby police officer or an upcoming exit.

In short, to understand emotional feedback and amplification, one must analyze

ongoing interactions that are themselves embedded in various situations. Emotional

feedback and amplification is more likely to occur when structural and cultural conditions

conspire to facilitate ongoing interactions. As such, to understand emotional feedback

and amplification as it occurs at “TD’s Restaurant,” one must also examine the structural

15

and cultural organization of the restaurant. Before examining how the structure of the

restaurant and the idiocultures of the day and night wait staff’s affect interactions and the

process of emotional feedback and interaction that occurs through them, I turn to the

methods used to make the empirical case for feedback and amplification.

METHOD

Data for this project were collected via observations and interviews with servers at

“TD’s,” a sports bar and grill named after a coach at a nearby university, located in a

suburb of a large midwestern city. There is a rich history of ethnographic research in

restaurants (Tanner 1907; Whyte 1948; Fine 1996; Katovich and Hintz 1997), and I build

on this tradition for three reasons. First, tipping commodifies interaction (Davis 1959),

creating an incentive for servers to engage in purposeful interactions with customers.3

However, restaurant work is also characterized by lengthy periods of downtime, creating

the opportunity to observe spontaneous interactions between coworkers.

The second reason relates to methods of tip maximization used by servers at

different types of restaurants. Within the industry there are essentially three types of

restaurants: low-end, middle range, and high-end (Hall 1993b). Low-end restaurants

succeed by selling a large number of inexpensive items. The emphasis on volume

motivates servers to get customers “in and out,” maximizing their tips by quickly “turning

tables” to increase the total number of tables served and tips received (Paules 1991, p.

26). Interactions with customers are typically short, requiring little emotional engagement

(Hallett 1999). In contrast, high-end restaurants profit by selling a small number of

16

expensive items. The emphasis is on fine dining, and servers maximize tips via

“showmanship” —for example, complex wine serving techniques (Butler and Snizek

1976; Finkelstein 1989). Though dramatic, showmanship requires little emotional

engagement: these servers are known for their detached aloofness, not emotional

involvement (Mars and Nicod 1984). Middle-range establishments profit by selling a

moderate number of affordable items. Servers interact with fewer customers than at low-

end restaurants but the frequency of interactions is higher. These servers maximize tips in

two ways, by “buttering-up” customers with small talk and trying to increase the bill

through “product promotion” (Butler and Snizek 1976). To the extent that emotional

engagement facilitates buttering-up and product promotion, middle-range establishments

such as TD’s are rich forums for emotion management.

Third, while TD’s is not a corporate chain, it is attached to a hotel that pays a fee

for the use of a corporate name, and there are certain regulations the restaurant must

follow. Based on preliminary interviews with the management, I felt TD’s was a context

ripe for organizationally mandated “feeling rules” encouraging emotion management.

Observations began in mid-October 1998 and ended in mid February 1999.

During this time I took an “active member role” (Adler and Adler 1987), bussing tables to

blend in and gain access to all the areas of the restaurant used by servers. This role also

enabled me to get physically close to interactions without being conspicuous, improving

the accuracy of my data. Working side by side with the employees enabled me to

establish rapport, but I was not a paid employee, creating a level of detachment, and I

made it clear to the staff that research was my first priority.

17

During my time at TD’s I varied observations to cover both the day and night

shifts during peak and slow periods. I observed the day shift on nine occasions for forty

hours, and I observed the night shift on ten occasions for thirty-five hours. During this

time my observations became saturated, prompting my departure from the field.

Field notes were supplemented with interviews with eleven servers, providing

further understanding of their experiences and emotions. Servers were chosen based on

an availability sample of the fifteen servers observed in the field (four of five from the

day shift and seven of ten from the night shift). Interviews ranged from forty-five

minutes to an hour and forty-five minutes, with a median of an hour and fifteen minutes.

All interviews were taped, and during the interviews I took copious notes as a means to

identify relevant portions for transcription.

All field notes, interview notes, and transcription excerpts were entered into

NUD*IST, a computer-based coding program. NUD*IST facilitates analysis by sorting

strips of coded data into categories to be cross-referenced in a process of constant

comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss 1967). After describing the organizational and

cultural structures affecting the ongoing interactions through which emotional feedback

and amplification occur, I shift into an in-depth analysis of twenty-six observed incidents

of emotional feedback and amplification (an average of 1.37 documented incidents per a

day in the field). While I indicate the frequency of observed phenomenon, the primary

focus of this project remains interpretive: not to measure the statistical regularity of a

phenomenon, but to create an interpretive model of how it works when it does occur, a

model grounded in empirical observations (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

18

EMOTIONS IN CONTEXT: RESTAURANT STRUCTURE, INTERACTIONS,

AND EMOTIONS AT TD’S

To study emotions sociologically is to study them in context, as manifested in studies

ranging from bereavement in modern households (Lofland 1985) to situational pressures

to “do gender” by being emotionally engaged (West and Zimmerman 1987; Hall 1993a;

1993b). Keeping with this tradition, I examine how the interactions through which

emotions are evoked and evolve are embedded in the organization of TD’s Restaurant,

namely the definition of the situation, customer expectations, the server/table ratio, and

formal rules. These restaurant structures weigh on interactions and the process of

emotional feedback and amplification that occurs through them.

First, the interactive styles used when waiting tables are affected by the definition

of the situation. At TD’s the definition of the situation is premised on diversity, requiring

flexibility in interactive styles. While TD’s is a mid-range bar and grill, it is also a hotel

restaurant and must meet the needs of a diverse clientele, from sports fans to business

people. True to a sports bar, there are five televisions featuring sports programs. Yet

consistent with elegant restaurants, the tables have overlaying black and purple

tablecloths, cloth napkins, and candles and a salad fork in the evening. The diversity is

reflected in the menu, which offers a range of items such as mozzarella sticks ($4.95),

burgers ($6.95), artichoke ravioli ($10.75) and shrimp linguini ($15.75). It is a

combination of sports excitement and relaxed ambiance that the servers navigate with a

mix of styles.

19

The definition of the situation also varies by customer (Mars and Nicod 1984).

Servers develop folk taxonomies that include categories such as “regulars” and

“businessmen” towards which they tailor their style (Spradley and Mann 1975, p. 62;

Katovich and Reese 1987; Katovich and Hintz 1997). The diverse clientele at TD’s

makes server-customer interactions all the more challenging. As one server lamented:

It is almost too diverse. You’ve got so many people coming in here, slobby guys

coming in who just want burgers and fries all the way up to high end people who

want the most expensive thing “and a bottle of wine and overly extensive service

because that’s what I’m used too.” And there is such a range of people; I think I

would prefer more of a set clientele (Interview).

At TD’s the setting forces servers to alternate styles, which shapes interactions and

emotions. A more homogeneous clientele would require less interactive variation.

Choosing an interactive style also depends on temporal pressures: time

availability facilitates increased interaction and the process of emotional feedback and

amplification. However, if a server must wait on eight tables at once, interactions must

be short. At TD’s there are twenty-four tables worked by three to four servers. Though a

server could have eight tables, they rarely have more than two to five. This ratio provides

ample time for showmanship, buttering-up, or product promotion, and servers are not

forced to turn tables.

Service interactions are often governed by formal rules including conversational

scripts (Leidner 1993; Katovich and Hintz 1997). A restaurant that scripts interactions to

20

begin with a friendly “How are you folks today?” will tend towards buttering-up.

However, at TD’s there are no mandated scripts, providing increased flexibility. Servers

learn this flexibility during an informal training process where they learn the menu and

shadow an experienced server, a stark contrast to elaborate, routinized training of many

corporate restaurants (Leidner 1993).

In sum, the diverse definition of the situation, varying customer expectations, the

table/server ratio, and the lack of formal rules require servers to be flexible in their

interactions with customers. Although “buttering-up” is the most common interactive

style, there are also cases of product promotion, showmanship, and even turning tables.

In this way, restaurant structure informs interactions and the emotions they elicit.

Interactions at TD’s are also informed by surface acting, but not deep acting.

Customer-Server Interaction at TD’s: Surface or Deep Acting?

Stacey is busy waiting on a 6 top and a 5 top. But as she brings 4 cups of soup to

the 6 top, she exudes patience, smiling and making eye contact as she places the

soup before them. “Is there anything else I can get you right now?” She asks

politely. The customers indicate no as they dip into their soup, and Stacey parts

with a smile. But as she turns her smile disappears, and in a hurry she asks me to

fetch the table more bread (Field notes).

This selection is one of the many examples of customer-server interactions at TD’s

characterized by “buttering-up.” Stacey uses surface acting to butter-up her customers by

21

outwardly smiling, making eye contact, and engaging in polite conversation. It is also

possible that Stacey is engaged in deep acting, manipulating her emotions from the

“inside-out” by viewing her customers in a way that evokes an internal emotional

response for the sake of interaction. However, this and other examples suggest that

servers evoke emotions through interactions with customers through surface acting over

deep acting for two reasons: back-stage contradictions, and the restaurant feeling rules.

First, evoking emotions through deep acting takes time. The actor must work to

change their emotions internally rather than smiling to mask the emotion. The greater

effort involved in deep acting pays off with a more sincere emotional response

(Hochschild 1983, pp. 32, 40), and once an internal emotion is produced via deep acting

it does not disappear after a single interaction. However, this was not the case at TD’s:

Selma takes some lunch orders to a table occupied by two white men: “Here you

are!” she states with a gentle smile. But one of the men complains: “Umm, this is

wrong, I wanted crumbled blue cheese melted on top of my sandwich, and then

blue cheese dressing on the side, not just crumbled blue cheese on the side.”

“Oh, no problem!” Selma replies with cheer. But it is a problem, another

thing she must deal with before attending to her other tables. As she takes the

rejected plate and turns towards the kitchen, her expression of cheer is replaced

with one of disbelief as she rolls her eyes and groans “Achtt!” swiftly kicking

open the kitchen door and heading in to negotiate with the cooks (Field notes).

22

Antonio approaches a table of two older women to clear their plates and asks them

“Nice healthy breakfast?!” with a booming and cheerful voice.

“Yes, thank you!” replies one of the ladies.

“I made a bit of a mess. . .” indicates the other lady, pointing to bits of

food that have tumbled from her plate.

“That’s quite all right!” answers Antonio with a smile as he clears the

plates. Yet as Antonio walks away, his face becomes expressionless (Field notes).

In these examples the servers drop their outward expressions immediately after

interactions with customers, an indicator of surface acting. Such examples are frequent in

my data. Had the servers used internal deep acting to evoke happiness, the happiness

would not disappear as soon as the interactions end. However, the presence of various

back stages, a luxury the flight attendants studied by Hochschild do not have, create

spaces where the temporary surface act can be dropped. The servers definitely have

emotions, but they do not change their emotions from the inside out (deep acting), rather

they cover them from the outside in (surface acting).

Second, the management does not enforce “feeling rules” that promote deep

acting. Whereas Hochschild’s (1983, p. 25) flight attendants were taught and expected to

manage emotions internally according to company feeling rules, the only feeling rules at

TD’s involve the undocumented expectation to act respectful to customers—a rule

necessitating external surface acting, but not internal deep acting. The servers know they

must use surface acting in the attempt to receive a good tip, but when customers demean

23

the servers, they are not forced to internally “manage” their emotions with deep acting, or

even mask them with surface acting:

Brooke: There was this time I was cocktailing [waiting on tables in the bar], and I

thought I had lost my book at the bar [with all her money and receipts]. And I was

looking for it, and this woman was sitting there, looking at me the whole time. So

I said “Did you see someone?” And she was a real snot. So I was freaking out, it

was like 200 bucks! And I found it--I had accidentally thrown it in with the

menus, and so I went in the bar and told people I found it, and she started to talk

like a valley girl, like “OH, MY, GOD!” So I asked her if she was talking to me,

and she ignored me, so I said, “If you want to say something to me you say it, and

if you don’t you just need to shut up and grow up!”

TH: Wow, did the management know about it?

Brooke: Oh yeah, I even told Damon about it and he didn’t get mad. When

there’s a certain amount of people being disrespectful, you have to stand up for

yourself (Interview).

When the customer was a “real snot” during a period of crisis, Brooke did not hesitate to

tell her to “shut up and grow up.” Because the management does not define these

outbursts as deviant (Thoits 1985; 1990), the feeling rules do not require the servers to

24

“actually be” friendly at all times. A surface facade is all that is required, and in many

cases no facade is required.

What I want to stress in this discussion of surface and deep acting is that when

servers attempt to manage an emotional response and the ongoing process of feedback

and amplification, they do so through surface acting, not deep acting. This is due to the

restaurant structure. Had interactions at TD’s been governed by scripts and different

feeling rules, servers may have used deep acting to create emotionally engaged

showmanship, product promotion, or efforts to “butter-up” customers (Erkison 2000).

SMALL GROUP CULTURE AND EMOTIONAL FEEDBACK AND

AMPLIFICATION

I have detailed the organizational structure of TD’s Restaurant because this organization

determines the “conditions of possibility” (Lee 1998) for interactions and emotions.

However, the ongoing interactions through which emotional feedback and amplification

occur are also shaped by cultural structures, in particular the cultures of different small

groups. Fine (1979, p. 734) defines small group culture (or “idioculture”) as “a system of

knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and customs shared by members of an interacting group to

which members can refer and employ as the basis of further interaction.” Once formed,

these idiocultures have a constitutive role (Fine 1979, p. 736; Griswold 1991), shaping

interactions, feedback, and amplification. Idiocultures are localized, forming around

distinct groups (Fine 1979, p. 734). Thus, while all servers at TD’s experience a similar

25

organizational structure, there are two idiocultures to consider in regard to feedback and

amplification: The day shift and the night shift.

A Culture of Competition: Managing Feedback and Amplification by Day

Early in the day, Antonio’s customers were not friendly, and his expressions in the

back stage were gruff—he would push his jaw forward and to the right, baring his

lower teeth while furrowing his brow. But after a friendly interaction with a

group of nine customers, Antonio’s mood has picked up, and his smiles have

remained as he enters the back-stage. I ask if he had a good day or a bad day:

“Today is good day. There are only 2 servers, so you get to wait on more tables.

Plus, the customers are nice. Sometimes they are rude and mean. Today they are

nice and they tip like 25%” (Field notes).

This example involves a process of feedback and amplification initiated by surface acting.

Early in the shift Antonio’s interactions were unsuccessful, and his backstage expressions

show the anger he had covered with a surface mask. However, based on his obligation to

new customers, Antonio continues to mask his anger with surface acting, and his act

works. He is able to use surface acting to initiate a friendly interaction with a group of

customers, the first step toward an emotional change. As the friendly interactions

continue, we move into a second step in the situated evolution of an emotion: the

ongoing interactions become an added stimulus (culminating with a large tip), feeding

back into the emotion initiated by surface acting, amplifying it until it is no longer an act.

26

Now Antonio’s smiles remain even after his entrance into the backstage. The other

servers in the day shift had similar experiences of feedback and amplification managed

via surface acting (sixteen observed incidents), a less frequent occurrence for the night

shift (four observed incidents) (Table 1).

---INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE---

The key to the variation between shifts is found in Antonio’s remark “There are

only two servers, so you get to wait on more tables.” This section examines the day

shift’s culture of table competition, an idioculture that shapes interactions, short-

circuiting server-server interactions, but facilitating ongoing interactions with customers

and a process of managed emotional feedback and amplification (initiated via surface

acting).

Four of the five people who work the day shift at TD’s are “professional servers.”

They have been working at TD’s for over a year, and plan to continue their employment.4

The commitment of the day shift is especially notable as turnover in the restaurant

industry exceeds 200 percent annually (Butler and Skipper 1983: 20).5

The servers of the day shift work five to seven days a week, and tip money is their

primary income. As a result, there is considerable table competition. The hostess is

responsible for seating customers, and she follows a charting system to distribute tables

evenly. However, the servers remain skeptical, and seating practices are often disputed:

Mary hustles up to the hostess and expresses frustration because the latest

customer was seated in Selma’s section: “32 (the table number) is Selma’s, and

she’s got her!”

27

“I know, I’ve got that. You and Selma are both at 27 (tables waited).

Antonio, he’s way behind!” replies the hostess, pointing to her seating chart(Field

notes).

While the hostess tries to seat customers evenly, Mary’s skepticism is well founded, as

sometimes the other servers “steal” customers who are not assigned to them:

There is a large party coming in, and Antonio is going to serve them, but he’s still

taking new tables, resulting in an uneven distribution. Selma reminds Tapanga

(the hostess), but Tapanga just holds out her hands and shrugs, explaining that

Antonio took the table even though she did not assign it to him. Then Selma tells

me: “I have to stick up for myself, you know? Because people will take

advantage of you. I used to not care—‘oh, it’s just one table.’ But that adds up,

and it’s your money. I don’t want any more, just not less. I just want it to be

equal” (Field notes).

Selma was the victim in this case, but she could also be the perpetrator. Stan told me that

Selma once “stole” a table from him, passing it off by saying “they were waiting a long

time” (interview). Though the conflicts that arise as a result of table competition may be

emotionally disruptive, as a part of the idioculture the table competition is “functional” in

that serves the economic motivation of the day shift. Moreover, the culture is

“appropriate” for the group in that it conforms to the status relations (Fine 1979, pp. 740-

741). In each of these examples, tables were stolen from servers with less seniority.6 In

28

addition to being “functional” and “appropriate,” this culture of table competition is

“known” by the servers, “triggered” by the arrival of customers and, as these examples

illustrate, forms the basis of future interactions (Fine 1979).

Due to the table competition among the day staff, coworker relations are fair, but

certainly not friendly. For the most part the servers get along, but they prefer to avoid

interaction with each other, time they instead spend with their customers. Hence, in

short-circuiting server-server interactions, the culture of table competition facilitates the

ongoing server-customer interactions needed for emotional feedback and amplification:

Mary bounds up to me and pats me on the arm with a friendly smile. She’s in a

terrific mood, and I figure the eleven top she just waited on must have tipped her

well. But when I ask her about the tip she proves me wrong: “Not good. They

left me 17 [15 percent], but I got all of the food out and there weren’t any

problems. When you have a party like that and it’s one server and you can do it

all, you should get extra. But some people are ignorant and that lady [who paid]

is just a bitch. But my other table, they are a difficult group, and no one likes

them, but I like them. They make you run all over, one person is like having five,

and they each leave everyone (else) a dollar each, but they leave me two dollars

each.” Mary seems particularly proud about this accomplishment (Field notes).

The fact that her eleven top did not tip her more than the 15 percent service charge angers

Mary, so much that she calls the woman who paid a “bitch.” Despite her anger, as she

approaches her next table she surface acts to mask her frustration. Mary’s surface acting

29

creates a positive interaction, even though the group is notorious for bad tips and difficult

behavior. As the interactions unfold, the table is so pleased that they tip Mary twice their

usual amount. These interactions serve as additional stimuli feeding back into the

emotion initiated by surface acting, amplifying it until what started as an act to cover

anger is realized in backstage pride—pride that further reflects the day staff’s economic

motivation and culture of competition. Another example is provided by Selma. She was

talking to two white male customers as they paid the check. They all laughed, and as

Selma left the interaction she had a big smile on her face, the only backstage smile I saw

by her that day. Figuring they were regulars, I asked Selma if she knew them:

No, they are just really nice. I wish I had more customers like that. Its just people

who are appreciative, and they make you feel good, and that’s when you like this

job. But then there are the other people who are rude, and you try to talk to them

and they don’t talk to you, and they want everything like THAT! [snaps fingers].

And those people, you just want to--- ARRGH! But then you get to know some

people like friends and you may be having a bad day but they make you happy,

and you make them happy too” (Field notes).

Selma was particularly glum that day, but she was able to initiate a positive interaction

with this table and stimulate a process of feedback and amplification such that both she

and her customers experienced positive emotions.

For Selma and the other daytime servers, the process of feedback and

amplification experienced through interactions with customers is purposeful, initiated via

30

surface acting. This phenomenon is embedded in a culture of table competition shared by

the day staff that increases the frequency and duration of server-customer interactions,

while decreasing server-server interactions.

A Culture of Solidarity: Spontaneous Amplification and Feedback by Night

In contrast to the day staff, only one of the servers working the night shift is a

non-professionals. Most are college students or performing artists,7 and they view their

serving jobs as temporary, simply a means to get some extra cash as they step on to bigger

things: “I’m not doing this for the rest of my life. I went to college you know. I took

calculus” (Mark--Interview). “This is not where my life is, and they [managers] know

that, and they understand. I’m not going to be a waitress my whole life” (Tracy--

Interview). “My dad always told me, in a campus area, college kids should work there

[restaurant], get money to go to school, and then get a real job. But it shouldn’t become

your life” (Brooke--Interview). While earning money is the primary goal for the servers

of the day shift, a goal they accomplish by working five to seven days a week, for the

night shift the job is at best a secondary concern. Few of the night shift servers work

more than three times a week,8 and they do not fear losing their job should conflicts arise

with their primary goals. Indeed, two quit and another two were fired during the course

of my observations.

Furthermore, when the night staff enters work they are often tired from classes

and practices, and they frequently try to give their tables away to other servers. Conflicts

31

between the servers of the night shift are rare, and when they do emerge, they involve

disputes over who will serve unwanted tables. As Mark explained to me:

I guess the biggest problem is like, Annette, she just doesn’t take tables, so one

night I was kinda busy and I was also told to help Leana at the bar, and I was

trying to do that and catch up on my [regular] tables, and I had four tables and I

was doing some bar work, and Annette had one table, so I said, “Can you get my

next table?” and she said “NO.” I’m completely packed, and she completely said

“NO.” So I did get stressed for like five minutes, but I let it blow over. (Interview)

The culture of table competition shared by the day staff is nonexistent, and when

combined with a common background as artists and students there is considerable group

cohesion among the night staff. This cohesive idioculture serves the functional goal of

group solidarity (Fine 1979, p. 741). This solidarity keeps them in the job even when

they do not need the money. As Tracy commented, “I teach (dance), and I make 25-35

dollars and hour, so I don’t even know why I am here” (Field notes). Yet in observing

Tracy’s playful interactions with the other servers, it became obvious to me why she

stayed on.

Where the day shift’s culture of competition facilitates ongoing interactions and

managed feedback and amplification with customers, the night shift’s culture of solidarity

enables ongoing interactions with each other. Though relatively spontaneous (compared

to server-customer interactions), these interactions still provide an emotional stimulus,

32

feeding back into existing emotional states and amplifying them. In turn, servers may

carry their amplified emotions into their subsequent interactions with customers.

One example of this relatively spontaneous process of feedback and amplification

involves Brooke and Stacey, friends from a local university:

As soon as Brooke comes in, she and Stacey start an animated conversation about

a party they attended over the weekend. Both laugh and smile about a guy who

flirted with Brooke. “I’m never f---ing around with him again! --You know!”

Brooke says with amusement as she heads into the kitchen to pick up some food.

Stacey continues to laugh about the story (Field notes).

Evidence of amplification comes from a subsequent interaction with Stacey and her

customers, where her emotional engagement is abnormally high (directly after the

interaction with Brooke):

As she approaches the table, Stacey smiles and locks onto their eyes as she takes

their drink orders: “You don’t want anything? Okay! And for you? . .” Stacey’s

voice is cheerful, and she maintains her eye contact and smile. As she is about to

leave the table, one of the ladies jokes about their hunger, indicating they would

like some more bread. In response Stacey smiles and jokes “I’ll just go get a big

loaf of bread and put it in the middle!” Everyone laughs (Field notes).

33

In general, Stacey is more reserved with her tables than this example indicates: She is an

inexperienced server and tends to be soft-spoken with customers. Prior to Brooke’s

arrival Stacey had been friendly but somewhat withdrawn (as is often the case).

However, Stacey’s unplanned interaction with Brooke is a positive emotional stimulus

that feeds back into Stacey’s current emotional state, amplifying it from friendly/subdued

to friendly/outgoing. Though it could be argued that Brooke and Stacey’s interaction is

purposeful (perhaps an intentional effort by Brook to cheer up Stacey), the interaction

happened so quickly and the content was so random that when placing it along a

continuum from spontaneity to purposefulness, I locate it more towards spontaneity.

In this example, the night shift’s culture of solidarity has both manifest and latent

functions: in enabling ongoing interactions and emotional feedback and amplification

between the servers, it reproduces the solidarity between Brooke and Stacey. However,

as this amplified emotion carries over into the interaction with the customers, it has an

added function. Where customers at TD’s normally are the recipients of surface acting,

Stacey’s customers unwittingly get a bonus: not just a pleasant façade, but an

emotionally infused, friendly interaction. This emotional response does not emanate from

surface or deep acting, but rather from an earlier, unplanned interaction with a coworker,

an interaction facilitated by the night shift’s culture of solidarity.

A similar example involves Angela. Normally Angela is distant with customers.

When she takes orders, she says as little as possible, often responding with a mere “mm

hmm.” She avoids eye contact and friendly expressions—a reflection of the diminished

value she puts on customers as compared to the servers of the day shift. Yet this tendency

changed after she participates in an interaction with Tracy and Amara in the kitchen:

34

As Tracy prepares some drinks, Amara walks through the kitchen. As Amara

passes Tracy, Tracy takes on the role of a stereotypical valley girl, stating with an

overly sarcastic, flaky but biting voice “WHAT--EVER AMARA!!” With a

playful scowl Amara balls up her fists and replies “Come on! Let’s go!! Right

now!!!” as if to fight, but instead they break into laughter.

Angela overhears all of this and suddenly bounds up the steps. She smiles

and says with a sarcastically defensive voice “I’m in a good mood today! Don’t

bring me down!!” The three laugh (Field notes).

What I want to emphasize is Angela’s spontaneous involvement in Tracy and Amara’s

interaction. It was by chance that Angela was nearby in the kitchen. Angela’s

participation was unplanned, as she suddenly rushes up the steps to be included. Tracy

and Amara do not intentionally “manage” Angela’s emotions. Nonetheless, their

ongoing, playful interaction acts as a stimulus, feeding back into Angela’s current

emotion, “I’m in a good mood today, don’t bring me down!” and amplifying Angela’s

positive emotion as they break into laughter.

As with Stacey, evidence of an amplified emotion comes from an interaction

between Angela and her customers occurring after the play in the kitchen:

I notice that Angela is more involved with her customers than normal, bringing

the pepper grinder to one of her tables, even though they did not ask for it. After

grinding pepper on the woman’s salad, Angela asks the man with a friendly voice,

35

varied in tone and pitch, “Would you like some?” The man responds “No,” and

Angela scrunches her face in acknowledgment and replies, “I didn’t think so”

(Field notes).

It is not Angela’s custom to go beyond the bare minimum. Yet after her interaction with

Tracy and Amara, Angela voluntarily uses showmanship, taking the pepper grinder to her

table, the only time I saw her use the grinder. Moreover, she butters up her customers in

a friendly voice, punctuating the interaction with a facial expression. While the customers

benefit from Angela’s emotional engagement, her emotions are not stimulated by

purposeful surface or deep acting. Rather, Angela’s increased emotional involvement is

the by-product of a spontaneous interaction with Tracy and Amara, an interaction that

amplified her already “good mood.”

It is not that the night servers are not purposeful in interactions with customers. In

most cases they are, employing surface acting to manage interactions. However, their

surface acting does not result in a process of managed emotional feedback and

amplification as often as it does for the day shift (Table 1). In contrast, the night shift

experiences a process of feedback and amplification based on spontaneous interactions

with each other. These spontaneous interactions are enabled by the solidarity of the night

shift, a stark contrast to the culture of table competition shared by the day shift. The

different idiocultures of the day and night shifts form the basis for different interactions

(Fine 1979, p. 734). Consequently, my data involve multiple incidents of spontaneous

feedback and amplification during interactions within the night shift (6) there are no such

incidents (0) of spontaneous feedback and amplification within the day shift (Table 1).

36

CONCLUSION

How does a small emotional response blossom into a large one? To answer this question,

I turn my gaze to interaction and develop a model of emotional feedback and

amplification. Embedded in organizational and cultural structures, ongoing interactions

serve as both a stimulus to evoke emotional responses, and as a conduit for the feedback

and amplification of emotions. I identify two modes of emotional feedback and

amplification: spontaneous and managed. Spontaneous amplification is a by-product of

unplanned but continuous interactions. In contrast, managed amplification results from

purposeful interactions, and can be initiated via surface acting or deep acting.

After developing a theory of emotional feedback and amplification, I elaborate on

it empirically with examples from an ethnographic study of “TD’s restaurant.” The data

indicate that servers at TD’s use surface acting in an effort to “butter up” customers while

engaging in “product promotion” and “showmanship.” Prefaced by surface acting,

continued interactions with customers become an additional emotional stimulus, feeding

back into the emotion initiated by surface acting and amplifying it. This process of

managed feedback and amplification is especially relevant for the day shift, where a

culture of table competition increases interactions with customers. In contrast, the night

shift is characterized by a group cohesion that solicits unplanned interactions between

coworkers, resulting in a more spontaneous process of emotional feedback and

amplification.

Whereas the sociology of emotions has traditionally centered on the evocation of

emotions, this article has focused on the aftermath of an evoked emotion. The concepts

37

presented here are a useful addition to the sociology of emotions, because they identify a

process apart from (but related to) the initial evocation of an emotion. Understanding

emotional feedback and amplification helps us to develop a fully genealogy of a felt

emotion, to grasp its situated evolution, to see not only how irritation is evoked, but also

how it boils over into rage. Likewise, we can see not only how happiness is aroused, but

also how it evolves into bliss. Moreover, we can understand how these emotions develop

spontaneously, but also how this development can be purposefully managed. Although

the organizational structures, cultures, interactions, and emotions presented here are

specific to TD’s Restaurant, the processes of emotional feedback and amplification are

not. Examining how feedback and amplification occur in different settings is an ongoing

task for sociologists interested in emotions, work and occupations, mental health, and

social movements.

The expansion of the service sector has forced sociologists to analyze labor in new

ways. Where labor was once conceived as working on objects, labor is increasingly

conceived as working on people (Van Maanen and Kunda 1989; Heimer and Stevens

1997). An unexpected consequence of this change is an increase in research on emotions:

Where people are involved, emotions follow. The term “emotion management” makes a

frequent appearance in this literature, as researchers are increasingly interested in how

people labor on emotions for the sake of customers. Yet this labor does not stop with the

initial step of surface or deep acting. Rather, this labor continues into the second step of

emotional feedback and amplification, and understanding these new forms of labor

involves not only an analysis of the first step, but also the second.

38

A related topic involves the mental health costs of emotion management in both

public and private life. Following research that documents the perils of alienation

associated with emotion management (Hochschild 1983; Wharton 1999), I had expected

many of the servers at TD’s to be emotionally stressed. Yet few were. Servers at TD’s

are able to manage processes of feedback and amplification to positively change their

emotions in a job that is often frustrating and degrading. Rather than becoming alienated,

servers at TD’s manage to triumph emotionally, despite their location in a low status

occupation. Various sociologists have correctly surmised that in status hierarchies,

unpleasant emotions tend to flow downhill (Kemper 1978b; Collins 1975; 1990).

However, to understand emotional flows it is not enough to examine status, we must also

look at the actual interactions between people of varying status. There is much to be

learned from these interactions and emotions, providing insights into the nature of

interactive service work, but also mental health in general.

Emotions are also being re-examined as a major component of social movements

(Emirbayer and Goldberg 2001). Social movements depend not only on resource

mobilization, but also on the mobilization of emotions. A challenge for activists is to

evoke emotional responses in target audiences, and then amplify those emotions to the

point where audiences will act. Activists must also work to maintain the emotional

vibrancy of their movements. To some extent these challenges can be met in interactional

settings through managed feedback and amplification, and it may be that successful

leaders are experts at controlling this process. After all, it is common for both leaders and

followers to feel “pumped up” after a rally.

39

Finally, emotional feedback and amplification are important to the sociology of

everyday life. All too often our zeal for understanding the exceptional causes us to ignore

the power of the ordinary. But emotional feedback and amplification occur daily through

interactions in countless settings. Studying these settings can add substance to this

outline of feedback and amplification, helping to specify how and when these processes

occur.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Gary Alan Fine, Carol Heimer, David Shulman, Bruce Carruthers,

Christena Nippert-Eng, Bernard Beck, Peggy Thoits, Phil Howard, Heather Fitz Gibbon,

Charles Hurst, Rebecca J. Erickson, the Sociology of Emotions Section of the American

Sociological Association, and the anonymous reviewers at The Sociological Quarterly.

1

Table 1. Emotional Feedback and Amplification by Type of Interaction and Staff

Mode of Feedback and Amplification

Managed Interactions Spontaneous Interactions

Shift With Customers With Other Servers

Day Staff 16 observed incidents 0 observed incidents

Night Staff 4 observed incidents 6 observed incidents

Notes: Twenty-six total observed incidents, an average of 1.37 observed incidents per

visit to the field.

2

1 Hochschild also makes a distinction between “emotional work” (the

management of emotions in private life) and “emotional labor” (the management of

emotions in the public sphere for the purposes of exchange value), while connecting

emotional labor to a form of alienation. Several researchers have problematized this

distinction (Wouters 1989; Tolich 1993; Jones 1997; see also Hochschild 1989). In this

article, the distinction only adds confusion, so it is avoided.

2 Indeed, for Goffman self-directed emotion management is a misnomer, as he

does not believe in a core self.

3 I may be criticized for assuming an actor whose motivation is overly economic.

It is true that servers see value in interaction itself. However, I have yet to meet a server

who would work in a restaurant without economic compensation.

4 Four of the five daytime servers are Hispanic. Antonio and Juan have both been

working at the hotel restaurant (before it was even “TD’s”) for over fifteen years. Mary

and Selma have been working at TD’s for approximately a year and a half. The lone

exception to the professional servers of the day staff is Stan, a white male. TD’s is his

first job waiting tables.

5 They prefer the day shift for two reasons. First, it is more rewarding financially

because it includes both breakfast and lunch. Second, the day shift runs from 6:30 A.M.

to 3:30 P.M., allowing the servers to spend the evenings with their families.

3

6 In the first example, Antonio (fifteen years at TD’s) stole a table from Selma

(one year at TD’s), who later stole a table from Stan (who had just started at TD’s).

Moreover, the seniority system is codified in the union to which the professional servers

belong.

7 Only three of the ten servers working the night shift were not in college or the

arts, and two of these three were quickly fired. The only “professional” server among the

night staff is John, who is slowly being integrated into the management staff. Five of the

ten night servers are women, and nine of the ten are white (the exception is Angela, a

black female).

8 The exception is again John who is training for a career in the restaurant

industry.

4

REFERENCES:

Adler, Patricia A., and Peter Adler. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Averill, James R. 1976. “Emotions and Anxiety: Sociocultural, Biological, and

Psychological Determinants.” in Emotions and Anxiety: New Concepts and

Appplications, edited by Marvin Zuckerman and Charles D. Spielberger.

Hinsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Butler, Suellen R., and J. K. Skipper Jr. 1983. “Working the Circuit: An Explanation of

Employee Turnover in the Restaurant Industry.” Sociological Spectrum 3: 19-33.

Butler, Suellen R., and William E. Snizek. 1976. “The Waitress-Diner Relationship.”

Sociology of Work and Occupations 3: 209-223.

Cahill, Spencer E. and Robin Eggleston. 1994. “Managing Emotions in Public: The

Case of Wheelchair Users.” Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 300-312.

Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict Sociology. New York: Academic.

------. 1990. “Stratification, Emotional Energy, and the Transient Emotions.”

in Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotions, edited by T.D. Kemper.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Darwin, Charles. 1872. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. New

York: Philosophical Library.

Davis, Fred. 1959. “The Cabdriver and His Fare: Facets of a Fleeting Relationship.”

American Journal of Sociology: 65: 158-165.

5

Durkheim, Emile. 1952. Suicide. London: Routledge.

------. 1961. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Collier

Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Chad Goldberg. 2001. “Collective Emotions in Political Life.”

Paper presented at Northwestern University, Department of Sociology Colloquia,

Evanston, IL.

Erikson, Carla. 2000. “ ‘Just a Waitress’ Emotional Labor and Server Subjectivity.”

Paper presented at the Gender and Emotions in the Workplace session of the

Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction meetings, Washington D.C.

Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1979. “Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little

League Baseball Teams.” American Sociological Review 44: 733-745.

------. 1996. Kitchens. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Finkelstein, Joanne. 1989. Dining Out. New York: New York University Press.

Flaherty, Michael G. 1992. “The Derivation of Emotional Experience from the Social

Construction of Reality.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 13: 167-182.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York:

Pantheon.

Francis, Linda E. 1994. “Laughter, the Best Mediation: Humor as Emotion

Management in Interaction.” Symbolic Interaction 17: 147-163.

Freud, Sigmund. 1959. Collected Papers. edited Joan Riviere. New York: Basic

Books.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

6

Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social

Interaction.” Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. 18:

213-31.

------. 1956a. “Embarrassment and Social Organization.” American Journal

of Sociology. 62: 264-74.

------. 1956b. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” American Anthropologist. 58:

473-502.

------. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.

------. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction.

Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

------. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books.

Griswold, Wendy. 1986. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in

the London Theater, 1576-1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

------. 1991. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Pine Forge Press.

Hall, Elaine. 1993a. “Smiling, Deferring, and Flirting: Doing Gender by Giving ‘Good

Service.’” Work and Occupations. 20: 452-471.

------. 1993b. “Waitering and Waitressing: Engendering the Work of Table

Servers.” Gender and Society. 7: 329-346.

Hallett, Tim. 1999. “Structure, Interaction, and Impression Management at a

7

Suburban Diner: Emotional Labor as Interactive Emotion Change.” Paper

presented at the Sociology of Emotion Section Session of the American

Sociological Association Conference, Chicago IL.

Heimer, Carol A. and Mitchell L. Stevens. 1997. “Caring for the Organization: Social

Workers as Frontline Risk Managers in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.” Work

and Occupations 24: 133-163.

Heise, David R. 1979. Understanding Events: Affect and the Construction of Social

Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hochschild, Arlie. 1975. “The Sociology of Feeling and Emotion: Selected

Possibilities.” in Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social

Science edited by Marcia Millman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Garden City NY:

Anchor Press.

------. 1979. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure.”

American Journal of Sociology 85, 3: 551-575.

------. 1981. “Power, Status, and Emotion.” Contemporary Sociology 10:

73-77.

------. 1983. The Managed Heart. Berkley: University of California Press.

------. 1989. “Reply to Cas Wouter’s Review Essay on The Managed

Heart.” Theory, Culture, and Society 6: 439-445.

------. 1990. “Ideology and Emotion Management: A Perspective and Path

for Future Research.” In Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotions, edited

by T.D. Kemper. Albany: State University of New York Press.

8

James, Nicky. 1989. “Emotional Labour: Skill and Work in the Social Regulation of

Feelings.” The Sociological Review 37: 15-42.

James, William and Carl B. Lange. 1922: The Emotions. Baltimore MD: Williams and

Wilkins.

Jones, Lynn Cerys. 1997. “Both Friend and Stranger: How Crisis Volunteers Build and

Manage Unpersonal Relationships with Clients.” in Social Perspectives on

Emotion, Volume 4, edited by David D. Franks, Rebecca J. Erickson, and

Beverley Cuthbertson-Johnson. Greenwich CT: JAI Press Inc.

Katovich, Michael A. and Robert Hintz Jr. 1997. “Responding to a Traumatic Event:

Restoring Shared Pasts Within a Small Community.” Symbolic Interaction 20:

275-290.

Katovich, Michael A. and William A. Reese II. 1987. “Full Time Identities and

Membership in an Urban Bar.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 16: 308-

343.

Katz, Jack. 1999. How Emotions Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kemper, Theodore D. 1978a. A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.

------. 1978b. “Toward a Sociological Theory of Emotion: Some

Problems and Some Solutions.” American Sociologist 13: 30-41.

------. 1981. “Social Constructionist and Positivist Approaches to the

Sociology of Emotions.” American Journal of Sociology 87: 336-361.

------. 1987. “How Many Emotions Are There? Wedding the Social and

the Autonomic Components.” American Journal of Sociology 93: 263-89.

9

------, ed. 1990. Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotions. New York: State

University of New York Press.

Konradi, Amanda. 1999. “ ‘I Don’t Have to be Afraid of You’: Rape Survivors’

Emotion Management in Court.” Symbolic Interaction 22: 45-77.

Lee, Orville. 1998. “Culture and Democratic Theory: Toward a Theory of Symbolic

Democracy.” Constellations 4: 433-455.

Leidner, Robin. 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of

Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lofland, Lyn H. 1985. “The Social Shaping of Emotion: The Case of Grief.” Symbolic

Interaction 8: 171-190.

Mars, Gerald, and Michael Nicod. 1984. The World of Waiters. Boston MA: Allen and

Unwin.

Marx, Karl. 1978. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” in The Marx-

Engles Reader edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: W.W. Norton and

Company.

Newman, P. L. 1960. “ ‘Wildman’ Behavior in a New Guinea Highlands Community.”

American Anthropologist 66: 1-19.

O’Brien, Martin. 1994. “The Managed Heart Revisited: Health and Social Control.”

The Sociological Review 43: 393-413.

Paules, Greta Foff. 1991. Dishing It Out: Power and Resistance among Waitresses in a

New Jersey Restaurant. Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.

Pierce, Jennifer L. 1995. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms.

10

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rafaeli, Anat, and Robert I. Sutton. 1989. “The Expression of Emotion in

Organizational Life.” in Research in Organizational Behavior edited by L. L.

Cummings and Barry M. Staw. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Reeve, John Marshall. 1997. Understanding Motivation and Emotion. New York:

Harcourt-Brace.

Schacter, Stanley, and Jerome Singer. 1962. “Cognitive, Social, and Physiological

Determinants of Emotional State.” Psychological Review. 69: 379-99.

Scheff, Thomas J. 1973. “Intersubjectivity and Emotion.” American Behavioral

Scientist 16 501-51).

------. 1990. Microsociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schott, Susan. 1979. “Emotion and Social Life: A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis.”

American Journal of Sociology 84: 1317-1334.

Smith, Allen C., and Sherryl Kleinman. 1989. “Managing Emotions in Medical School:

Student’s Contacts with the Living and the Dead.” Social Psychology Quarterly

52: 56-69.

Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and David R. Heise. 1988. Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances

in Affect Control Theory. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Spradley, James P., and Brenda J. Mann. 1975. The Cocktail Waitress. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.

Tanner, Amy E. 1907. “Glimpses at the Mind of a Waitress.” American Journal of

11

Sociology 13: 48-56.

Thoits, Peggy A. 1985. “Self-Labeling Processes in Mental Illness: The Role of

Emotional Deviance.” American Journal of Sociology 92: 221-249.

------. 1989. “The Sociology of Emotions.” Annual Review of Sociology 15: 317-342.

------. 1990. “Emotional Deviance: Research Agendas.” In Research Agendas in the

Sociology of Emotions, ed T.D. Kemper. Albany: State University of New York

Press.

------. 1996. “Managing the Emotions of Others.” Symbolic Interaction 19: 85-109.

Tolich, Martin. 1993. “Alienating and Liberating Emotions at Work: Supermarket

Clerks Performance of Customer Service.” Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography 22: 361-381.

Tomkins, Silvan S. 1962. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. New York: Springer.

------. 1980. “Affect as Amplification: Some Modifications in Theory.” in Emotion:

Theory, Research, and Experience edited by Robert Plutchik and Henry

Kellerman. New York: Academic Press.

Van Maanen, John. and Gideon Kunda. 1989. “ ‘Real Feelings’: Emotional Expression

and Organizational Culture.” in Research in Organizational Behavior edited by

L.L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1:

125-151.

Wharton, Amy S. 1999. “The Psychosocial Consequences of Emotional Labor.” in

12

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science edited by

Alan W. Heston and Neil A. Weiner. Vol 561. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Periodicals Press.

Whyte, William. 1948. Human Relations in the Restaurant Industry. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Wouter, Cas. 1989. “The Sociology of Emotions and Flight Attendants: Hochschild’s

Managed Heart.” Theory, Culture, and Society 6: 95-123.

Zajonc, R. B. 1985. “Emotion and Facial Effervesce: An Ignored Theory Reclaimed.”

Science, April 5, pp. 15-21.

Zurcher, Louis A. 1982. “The Staging of Emotion: A Dramaturgical Analysis.”

Symbolic Interaction 5: 1-22.