Examining Men's Status Shield and Status Bonus

Running head: EXAMINING MEN’S STATUS SHIELD AND STATUS BONUS

Examining Men’s Status Shield and Status Bonus:

How Gender Frames the Emotional Labor and Job Satisfaction of Nurses

Marci D. CottinghamUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Rebecca J. Erickson and James M. DiefendorffUniversity of Akron

Forthcoming inSex Roles: A Journal of Research

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-014-0419-z

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-014-0419-z

EXAMINING MEN’S STATUS SHIELD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The research reported here uses data from a larger study, “Identity and Emotional Management Control in Health Care Settings,” funded by the National Science Foundation (SES-1024271). A version of this paper was presented at the American Sociological Association 2013 annual meeting in New York City. Tables are availableupon request.

2



How Gender Frames the Emotional Labor and Job Satisfaction of Nurses

Abstract

Hochschild (1983) coined the term status shield to theorize men’s status-

based protection from the emotional abuses of working in a service job

and hence their diminished need to manage emotions as compared to

women. Extending this concept, the current study examines how gender

operates not merely to shield men from emotional labor on the job but

to also shape the relationship between emotional labor and job

satisfaction. Using survey data collected from 730 registered nurses

(667 women and 63 men) at a large Midwestern hospital system in the

U.S., we show that in addition to engaging in less emotional labor

than women, men benefit from their emotion management in ways that

women do not. Gender moderates the relationship between two

dimensions of emotional labor (i.e., surface acting – covering emotion

and deep acting) and two outcome measures (i.e., job satisfaction and

turnover intention). Results support theoretical claims that men’s

privileged status shields them from having to perform emotional labor

as frequently as women. Further, when male nurses do perform higher

levels of emotional labor, they are shielded from the negative effects

3


of covering emotion and their deep acting correlates with higher job

satisfaction—a status bonus—compared to that of their female

colleagues. Implications for gender theory, emotional labor, and

nursing policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords: Status Shield, Gender, Emotional Labor, Nursing, Job

Satisfaction

4



How Gender Frames the Emotional labor and Job Satisfaction of Nurses

Introduction

Gender and emotion are theoretically linked aspects of social

life (Brody & Hall, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Lutz, 1988; Shields,

2000), with women stereotyped as more nurturing and emotionally

expressive (Lutz 1988) and men stereotyped as stoic and emotionally

detached (Connell, 2005; Jansz, 2000). But empirical studies

exploring gender differences in emotional experience, expression, and

skills in the U.S. have shown mixed results (Brackett, Rivers,

Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Rueckert, 2011; Simon & Nath,

2004). Consistent gender differences among U.S. men and women tend to

emerge when researchers focus on emotional ideology, management, or

emotion-focused coping strategies (Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Hatfield,

Rapson, & Le, 2009; Thoits, 1990) but not when examining emotional

experiences (Simon & Nath, 2004). While Hochschild (1983) theorized

that emotion-based processes pervade social interaction generally, she

argued that they are particularly relevant to the human service sector

and service-based occupations largely occupied by women in the U.S.

(Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2010). Even in these settings, gender

may play a role in the management of emotions and its effects,

5


specifically for job satisfaction and turnover intention, as these are

two of the most frequently studied workplace outcomes.

Emotional labor refers to the work employees perform on the job to

manage their own and others’ emotions in an effort to align them with

situational expectations (Hochschild, 1983). Linking emotional labor

to gender, the concept of a status shield refers to the protection that

members of privileged groups have against the negative emotional

expressions of others and the diminished need to perform emotional

labor as a result (Hochschild, 1983). Combining theories of emotional

labor (Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Theodosius, 2008) with

Ridgeway’s (2011) gender frame theory, we examine gender differences

in the culturally-based knowledge of display rules (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1993; Ekman, 1973; Hochschild, 1983), as well as the

emotional labor strategies of deep and surface acting (Hochschild

1983). We test these ideas using a regression analysis of survey data

from registered nurses (RNs) employed within a health care system in

the Midwestern United States. While limited to the experiences of

nurses employed by one organization in the U.S., the current study

extends theoretical and empirical knowledge about how gender shapes

the relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction, as well

as illuminating the unique experiences of men in a female-dominated,

emotionally demanding profession. Specifying how the emotional

6


dimensions of care are influenced by such demographic characteristics

as gender may hold global significance as countries worldwide continue

to experience a serious shortage of nurses and seek to develop

policies targeting the diversification of the nursing workforce

(International Council of Nurses, 2006; Littlejohn, Campbell, Collins

McNeil, & Kahnyile, 2012; Oulton, 2006). Such issues are also likely

to remain relevant to researchers and practitioners within the U.S.

since they are critical to providing high quality care to an aging

population and the need to educate, recruit, and retain a diverse

nursing workforce (Buerhaus, Donelan, Ulrich, Norman, & Dittus, 2005;

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012; IOM, 2010).

Emotional Labor and Men’s Status Shield

According to emotion management theory (Hochschild 1983), when

individuals modify their feeling and/or display of emotion, they

engage in emotion management. Emotion management in service to

occupational demands is referred to as emotional labor and includes

“the duration, frequency, variety and intensity of emotions

displayed,” as well as the suppression of felt emotions (covering up

feeling), the enactment of unfelt emotions (pretending to feel), and

deep acting (modifying felt emotion in order to then present an

appropriate display) (Lovell, Lee, & Brotheridge, 2009, p. 274).

Besides the cultivation of genuine emotions referred to as deep acting,

7


individuals may also engage in surface acting, or the modification of

facial expressions in order to display a particular emotion to others

(Hochschild, 1983). Surface acting operates in line with display rules, or

the prescribed rules for displaying emotion in a given situation

(Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). Display rules may convey expectations

to cover up emotions that are felt but not situationally appropriate

and pretending to express emotions that are expected but not felt

(Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). We examine both types of surface acting

(i.e., covering and pretending) in the present study.

Research on gender differences in emotional expression and

management has largely been conducted in North America, with mixed

results (Johnson & Spector, 2007). All empirical studies discussed

below are based on samples from the U.S. unless otherwise noted. Among

dual-earner families in the U.S., Erickson and Ritter (2001) found

that women were more likely to report covering up agitated feelings

than men, though overall men and women were similar in their emotion

management and its effects on well-being. Using a national sample from

the U.S., Simon and Nath (2004) found that women report generally

expressing (i.e., not managing) their emotions more than men.

However, specific emotions such as anger did not differ across gender.

Although Lovell, Lee, and Brotheridge (2009) did not test for the

potentially moderating effect of gender in their study of Canadian

8


physicians, they found that female physicians engaged in significantly

more emotional labor (for five of the nine variables) than men, with

more physiological symptoms of strain along with greater self-

authenticity. While this sample is outside of the U.S., it is one of

the few studies to compare men and women in the same profession. Like

female physicians, female nurses may engage in more emotional labor

than their male counterparts.

Job satisfaction is one of the most commonly studied workplace

outcomes and has been theoretically and empirically linked to

emotional abilities and experiences (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003;

Grandey, 2000; 2003; Hochschild, 1983; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011;

Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000). In a study of U.S. customer service

employees, Johnson and Spector (2007) reported that high levels of

surface acting were related to lower levels of job satisfaction and

other indicators of well-being for women compared to men engaging in

similar amounts of surface acting. Gender did not appear to influence

the relationship between deep acting and job satisfaction in their

study. Examining turnover intention—an employee’s reported intention

to look for work elsewhere and an indicator of low job satisfaction—

Chau, Dahling, Levy, and Diefendorff (2009) found that deep acting had

a direct, negative effect on turnover intention while surface acting

had an indirect, positive effect on turnover intention, mediated by

9


emotional exhaustion. In other words, employees in their sample who

reported deep acting were less likely to report intentions to leave

the job, while those who reported surface acting became emotionally

exhausted and reported higher turnover intentions as a result. In one

of the few studies to test how gender moderates the relationship

between surface and deep acting and occupational behaviors, Scott and

Barnes (2011) found that female bus drivers in the U.S. reported more

withdrawal behaviors at work compared to men when they performed

surface acting but not deep acting.

Evidence suggests that U.S. men employed in non-traditional jobs

have fewer problems with expressions of intimacy as well as other

dimensions of gender role conflict (Dodson & Borders, 2006; O’Neil,

2008). Moreover, although results concerning gender and emotion

management have been mixed, scholars generally suggest that men’s

emotional labor is likely to differ from women’s in three ways: (1)

the nature of the emotional labor may differ as men in the U.S. are

held to different norms or feeling and display rules than women

(Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler, 2005; Garside & Klimes-Dougan, 2002;

Vaccaro, Schrock, & McCabe, 2011); (2) men in the U.S., by virtue of

greater status generally, are likely to engage in less emotional labor

then women as a result of their status shield (Hochschild, 1983); and

(3) the outcomes of men’s emotional labor will also differ as a result

10


of the cultural conflation in the U.S. of emotionality with the

feminine (Bellas, 1999; O’Lynn, 2007).

As an interactional resource, Hochschild (1983, pp. 163, 175)

theorized that the status shield protects privileged individuals from

the “displaced feelings of others” and from having their feelings

“mishandled.” These benefits are grounded in cultural beliefs about

privileged actors’ greater authority and generalized competence

(Hochschild, 1990; Ridgeway, 2011). With their perceived authority

shielding them from the negative emotions of the public they serve,

men’s status may shield them from emotional demands (Erickson &

Ritter, 2001; Hochschild, 1983), “social assaults” (Ashforth &

Kreiner, 1999, p. 415), “abusive treatment” (Scully, 1988, p. 211),

and other affronts to authority (Bellas, 1999). Within occupational

settings in the U.S., low status is associated with emotional labor

that lacks autonomy and is least respected by others (Stenross &

Kleinman, 1989). Other than the few studies noted above, the status

shield concept has been used primarily as a post hoc explanation for

status-differentiated emotion processes (e.g., Goodrum & Stafford,

2003; Lan, 2003). To quantify these processes and the scope of men’s

status shield, direct testing of emotional labor among men and women

is needed.

11


Although there is widespread agreement that status should

theoretically protect individuals from the emotional practices that

come with being subject to others’ negative emotions, researchers have

yet to quantify the scope of its protective function. Attempting to

fill this gap, we expect status to generally shield U.S. male nurses

from managing emotion on the job, but to also influence job

satisfaction when men do manage emotions. Particularly for those

employed in human service jobs, it is unrealistic to assume that men

avoid emotional labor altogether (Barron & West, 2007; O’Lynn, 2007).

Instead of assuming that men’s stronger status shield merely deflects

the need to manage emotion, the current study investigates how status

also modifies the relationship between emotional labor practices and

the workplace outcome of job satisfaction. Based on research that has

consistently demonstrated a gender benefit for men employed in female-

dominated occupations in the U.S. (Williams 1992, 1993), when they do

manage emotion as nurses, we expect men’s status to lead to higher job

satisfaction and lower turnover intention.

To summarize from the above literature, gender can shape

interactions with others as part of the routine practice of one’s job.

Status shields not only enable those with higher status to get the job

done in a way that benefits the self, but they reflect and reproduce

taken-for-granted assumptions about how men in the U.S., for example,

12


are perceived to be generally more competent and worthy of respect

(Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Stenross & Kleinman, 1989). Thus, routine

emotional practices are intimately connected to the ways that status-

based inequalities are created, sustained, and legitimized (Gould,

2009; Lively, 2000; Ridgeway, 2011). Examining differences between

male and female nurses in the U.S., we draw on gender frame theory

(Ridgeway, 2011) to understand how gender shapes emotional labor and

its effects among men in a female-dominated profession.

Gender Frame Theory and Nursing

Given the gendered meanings attached to work centered on care and

emotion (Bellas, 1999), anticipating the use and effects of men’s

status shield requires a broad theory of gender’s influence on social

psychological processes. As a primary frame that structures social

relations (Ridgeway, 1997; 2009; 2011), gender operates at multiple

levels to shape men’s and women’s lives. Gender is one of the primary

means for differentiating and categorizing individuals in order to

create shared knowledge that transcends situations and groups

(Ridgeway, 2011). To be sure, without such categorization, the

coordination of social relations would be impossible (Ridgeway, 2011).

Problematically, however, the categorical differences are also linked

to inequality, as “beliefs about difference are easily transformed

13


into beliefs about inequality and gender status” (Ridgeway, 2011, p.

34).

Beliefs that differentiate men and women while perpetuating

gender inequality appear hegemonic in their claim to universality and

proliferation within social institutions (Ridgeway, 2009). Cultural

beliefs— not empirical reality—stereotype men as more agentic and

instrumentally competent than women, and women as more expressively

competent and communal than men (Ridgeway, 2009). These stereotypes

generally advantage men in the workplace (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman,

2000; Husso & Hirvonen, 2012; Ridgeway, 2011). The tenacity and

influence of such beliefs comes from their operation outside of

explicitly conscious processes, subtlety shaping individual behaviors

and perceptions (Rashotte & Webster, 2005; Ridgeway, 1997). Thus,

Ridgeway (2011) theorizes that gender operates as a “background”

identity, working in combination with, for example, occupational

identities to shape social expectations, perceptions, and behavior

(also see O’Neil, 2008).

Applying gender frame theory to the occupational role of nursing,

gender is likely salient and thus influential on emotional labor and

its effects for three reasons (Ridgeway, 2009). First, as a minority

within a numerically dominant female profession (IOM, 2010), men are

likely to interact with colleagues of a different gender (i.e.,

14


women), making gender a salient status in this context. Second,

engaged in the task of caring for the physical and emotional well-

being of others—tasks stereotyped as feminine—gender is culturally

relevant to nursing practices (Lewis, 2005; O’Lynn, 2007). Third,

nursing organizations (Cottingham, 2014) and some male nurses express

acute awareness of the mismatch between masculinity and the nursing

profession in the UK and the U.S. (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002; Heikes,

1991). Male nurses may perceive gender as particularly relevant, and

are likely to encounter others who perceive gender to be relevant to

their work as well.

Focusing on nurses’ self-reported job satisfaction and turnover

intention, not the perceptions of others, we theorize that men’s

status shield will shape their emotional labor in ways that improve

overall job satisfaction. This is in line with empirical studies of

men’s advantage in female-dominated professions in the U.S. (Williams,

1992, 1993). While Ridgeway argues that individuals are punished for

deviating from prescribed gender norms, individuals also internalize

prescribed norms (O’Neil, 2008; West & Zimmerman, 1987), as social

control becomes self-control (Mead, 1934). Stereotypical gender role

expectations can merge with self-perceptions and the internalized

norms to which one holds oneself accountable (Dodson & Borders, 2006;

O’Neil, 2008). Expanding gender frame theory to self-perceptions, men

15


may internalize an agentic and instrumental approach to the

stereotypic feminine tasks of emotional labor in nursing, allowing

them to view their work as gender conforming. As a result, men’s

status may shield them from engaging in similar amounts of emotional

labor as women, as well as shield them from the negative effects of

emotional labor and/or lead to improved outcomes when they do manage

emotions. We conceptualize the latter as a possible status bonus.

As a profession, nursing is built on gendered assumptions

concerning the importance of care and compassion tempered by some

level of detached concern (Alligood, 2005; Halpern, 2001). Cultural

beliefs about women’s ability to care and nurture others with

unyielding compassion has “silently attache[d] itself” (Hochschild,

1983, p. 170) to nursing job descriptions and traditional recruitment

tendencies. However, male nurses do engage in nurturing forms of

caring labor and they do manage emotion in order to care for patients

(O’Lynn, 2007) despite the risk to their masculinity (Rudman &

Fairchild, 2004). But the question remains: Does the status shield

emerging from men’s privileged gender position shape their emotional

labor in ways that improve their job satisfaction as compared to

women’s?

Proposed Hypotheses

Testing the above theoretical claims about men’s status shield

16


and status bonus, the current study investigates the original

questions related to men’s status shield: Do men in nursing perceive

fewer emotional expectations (i.e., display rules) as being required

of them and do they report lower levels of emotional labor than women

(using ANCOVA to compare men and women while modeling a covariate)?

After addressing these questions, we examine if and how gender

moderates the relationship between forms of emotional labor (surface

acting and deep acting) and occupational satisfaction (job

satisfaction and turnover intention) among RNs. Moderated multiple

regression was used to test these ideas. Factors such as differences

in actual felt emotions on the job and hours worked per week could

also influence the extent to which nurses engage in emotional labor

and the effects of this labor on occupational satisfaction and

turnover intent (Erickson & Ritter, 2001). As a result, we include

these as control variables in hypothesis 3. Based on the preceding

review of the literature, we posit the following hypotheses:

H1: Men report accountability to fewer emotional display rules

in their jobs than women.

H2 Men report lower levels of emotional labor than women.

H2a: Men report lower levels of surface acting than women.

H2b: Men report lower levels of deep acting than women.

17


H3: Controlling for felt emotions, display rules, and hours

worked per week, gender moderates the relationship between

emotional labor and outcomes, with men exhibiting more

beneficial effects of emotional labor on outcomes than

women.

H3a: Controlling for felt emotions, display rules, and

hours worked per week, gender moderates the

relationship of surface acting with job satisfaction,

such that the relationship is positive for men and

negative for women.

H3b: Controlling for felt emotions, display rules, and


relationship of surface acting with turnover

intentions, such that the relationship is negative for

men and positive for women.

H3c: Controlling for felt emotions, display rules, and


relationship of deep acting with job satisfaction,

such that the relationship is strong and positive for

men and weak for women.

H3d: Controlling for felt emotions, display rules, and


18


relationship of deep acting with turnover intentions,

such that the relationship is strong and negative for

men and weak for women.

Method

Participants and Procedure

To test the relationships among gender, emotional labor, and job

satisfaction and turnover intent, we drew on survey data collected at

a large, Midwestern hospital system in the U.S. that serves urban,

suburban, and rural communities. These data are part of a larger

project examining the effect of identity and emotion on the health and

well-being of RNs. A complete listing of full-time, direct care RNs

was obtained from the health system’s human resources department and

written questionnaires in sealed envelopes were distributed to

eligible RNs employed within each hospital (N = 1702). Completed

surveys were returned by mail from 762 participants, or 44.8% of the

original eligible sample. This response rate is consistent with other

studies among RNs (e.g., Lucero, Lake, & Aiken, 2010). Cases that did

not include complete data for each dependent variable and those

containing large amounts of missing data were dropped from the

analysis; otherwise, mean substitution was used. This resulted in a

final sample of 730 respondents, which included RNs from all nine

19


hospitals of the participating organization. Gender and race had no

effect on the likelihood of having missing items.

The mean age of the final sample was 40.78 (SD = 12.53) and 91%

of the respondents identified as female. Eighty-nine percent

indicated their race as European-American/White with 11% identifying

as a person of color. Seven percent had completed a graduate degree,

62% had completed a baccalaureate college degree, 25.6% had completed

an associate’s degree, and 5.4% earned a school of nursing diploma.

On average, respondents worked 40.06 hours per week (SD= 6.20). They

had spent an average of 9.5 years with their organization (SD= 9.28)

and 7.18 years on their current unit (SD= 7.17). The demographic

composition of the sample is consistent with that of the hospital

system more generally. Means and standard deviations of demographics

for men and women are reported in Table 1 and discussed in more detail

in the results section.

Measures

Emotional display rules were measured using an additive scale made

up of six items from Best, Downey, and Jones (1997) and two items from

Diefendorff, Croyle, and Gosserand (2005). Respondents were asked,

“considering your specific job, please rate how often you are expected

to” engage in a range of emotional labor behaviors. Responses to all

items were on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not expected at all;

20


5 = Almost always expected). Sample items included: “Hide anger or

disapproval about something someone has done (e.g., an act that is

distasteful)” and “Reassure patients who are distressed or upset.” The

scale met common criteria for reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).

Higher scores indicate greater expectation to conform to emotional

display rules.

Because other studies of emotion management have demonstrated

that the intensity of felt emotional experience can influence the

extent to which individuals engage in emotion management (e.g.,

Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Simon & Nath, 2004; Sloan, 2007), we control

for the felt emotion in each of the models tested. Agitated,

positive, and negative emotions were measured using items from an

emotional experiences scale used by Erickson and Ritter (2001) and

based originally on Russell’s (1980) circumplex model. The 14-item

list included: afraid, angry, anxious, ashamed, calm, excited,

frustrated, guilty, happy, helpless, irritated, proud, relaxed, sad,

and surprised. Respondents were asked to think about their preceding

week at the hospital and to indicate how strongly or intensely they

felt each of the identified emotions on a 6-point scale (0 = Not at

all; 5 = Very Intensely). The measure of agitated emotions averaged

the responses for angry, frustrated, and irritated. The scale met

common criteria for reliability (α = .89). Higher scores of agitated

21


emotions indicate experiencing more agitated emotions. Positive

emotions were measured by averaging the responses for calm, excited,

happy, proud, and relaxed. The scale met common criteria for

reliability (α = .84). Higher scores of positive emotions indicate

experiencing more positive emotions. The measure of negative emotions

averaged the responses for afraid, anxious, ashamed, guilty, helpless,

and sad. The scale met common criteria for reliability (α = .74).

Higher scores of negative emotions indicate experiencing more negative

emotions.

Because men and women in the sample differed significantly in

terms of number of hours worked, we include this as a control in the

regression models. Number of hours worked was assessed as an open-

ended questions based on the number of hours on average the individual

nurse worked per week.

Items measuring surface and deep acting were based on Brotheridge

and Lee’s emotional labor scale (2003). Because nurses interact with

a wide range of role-related partners, respondents were asked to

assess how frequently they engaged in surface and deep acting with a

variety of other group members: patients, patient families, doctors or

residents, other RNs on the unit, and nursing support staff. To

assess surface acting, respondents were asked to indicate how

frequently (1 = Never; 5 = Almost always) they “covered up their true

22


feelings” (α = .84) and “pretended to have feelings that are expected

but that they don’t really feel” (α = .91) with each of the role-

related partners listed above. Each scale met common criteria for

reliability. For deep acting, respondents were asked how frequently

they “make an effort to actually feel the emotions they are expected

to display” with each of the role-related partners and how frequently

they “change their feelings to match the emotions they are expected to

display.”

Although the items for surface and deep acting are traditionally

summed to create a composite score, we initially examined each of the

four items separately to explore the extent to which their effect on

job satisfaction varied. Because the effect for the two surface

acting items varied, we did not combine them in the final models

tested but included them as separate variables in every case. Higher

scores of surface acting – cover indicate higher frequency of covering

up true feelings. Higher scores of surface acting – pretend indicate

higher frequency of pretending to have feelings that are expected but

not really felt. In contrast, the two deep acting items operated

similarly in each model and for each outcome measure. As a result, we

combined the responses on the two deep acting items to create a

composite “deep acting” index. The scale met common criteria for

23


reliability (α = .93). Higher scores of deep acting indicate higher

frequency of trying to feel the emotions they are expected to display.

The outcome variables were job satisfaction and turnover

intentions. Each of these measures has been theoretically or

empirically linked to the emotional abilities and experiences under

consideration in the current study (e.g., Diefendorff & Richard, 2003;

Grandey, 2000; 2003; Hochschild, 1983; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011;

Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000). As one of the most frequently studied

work-related outcomes, job satisfaction can be conceptualized and

measured a number of different ways. Although it is often considered

an affective response, it is usually measured as a cognitively-based

evaluative assessment (Fisher, 2000). Our measure includes items

related to both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction (Rafferty &

Griffin, 2009). Using eight items adapted from the Quality of

Employment Survey (Quinn & Staines, 1979) to measure nurses’ job

satisfaction (1 = Very dissatisfied; 4 = Very satisfied), the summated

scale included items assessing satisfaction with pay, benefits, job

security, opportunities for advancement, work hours, control over

work, routine activities, and the job in general. The scale met common

criteria for reliability (α = .80). Higher scores of job satisfaction

indicate greater satisfaction with the job.

24


Three items measured the extent to which nurses intend to leave

their jobs (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993) on a 4-point Likert-

type scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 4 = Strongly agree). An example

item is, “I intend to leave this organization within the next year.”

The scale met common criteria for reliability (α =.80). Higher scores

of turnover intention indicate greater intention to leave the job.

Results

Demographic variables for men and women are reported in Table 1.

We tested for gender differences among a range of demographic

characteristics by using chi square tests for categorically measured

demographics (i.e., race, education) and t-tests for continuously

measured demographics (i.e., age, hours worked per week, tenure in the

organization, and tenure on the unit). No significant chi-square

values were observed, suggesting that men and women did not differ

with regard to race or education level (see Table 1). Age,

organizational tenure, and unit tenure were not significantly

different for men and women, but the number of hours worked per week

was significant (see Table 1). In this case, men (42.03) worked

longer hours on average than women (39.87). Given this observed

gender difference, we included the number of hours worked per week as

an additional covariate in each of the models testing our

hypotheses.

25


Correlations, means, and standard deviations for the study

variables are reported in Tables 2 and 3. For women, all three types

of emotional labor (surface acting – cover, surface acting – pretend,

and deep acting) were significantly negatively correlated with job

satisfaction. For women, turnover intention was significantly

positively associated with both types of surface acting. For men,

surface acting – pretending was significantly negatively correlated

with job satisfaction and deep acting was significantly negatively

correlated with turnover intention. These results generally support

the link between these emotional labor variables with job satisfaction

and turnover intent in nurses, with notable variations based on

gender.

Tests of Mean Differences between Men and Women for Study Variables

Because hours worked per week emerged as being significantly

different for men and women, we included this variable as a covariate

in our tests of mean differences between men and women. As a first

step, we performed a MANCOVA to determine if there were overall mean

differences between men and women for the variables examined in this

study. As noted in Table 3, the multivariate result was significant

for gender (Pillai’s Trace = .05, F [9,700] = 3.64, p < .001)

indicating an overall difference between male and female nurses. We

26


then proceeded to test for mean differences between men and women,

controlling for hours worked per week using ANCOVA.

Table 3 presents the means and ANCOVA results of all study

variables for women and men. Hypothesis 1 proposed that male nurses

would report fewer emotional display rules being expected of them in

their jobs than female nurses. Hypothesis 1 was supported as men

reported significantly lower levels of perceived emotional display

rules than women did. Notably, both men’s and women’s expectations of

emotional display rules are at the higher end of the scale (above

4.0), meaning that the majority of nurses reported they were often

expected to modify their expressed or felt emotions on the job.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that men would report performing less surface

acting than women. Hypothesis 2a was partially supported, as women

reported pretending to have emotions that are not actually felt more

than men, but there were no significant gender differences for

covering up emotions. As also shown in Table 3, Hypothesis 2b was

supported, in that men reported deep acting less than women did.

Importantly, male and female nurses did not differ in their levels of

felt emotions at work suggesting that the internal emotional

experiences of male and female nurses did not differ. This finding is

consistent with previous studies comparing men’s and women’s emotional

27


experience (Simon & Nath, 2004). Finally, male and female nurses did

not differ in the outcomes of job satisfaction and turnover intention.

Gender as a Moderator: Linking Emotional labor with Job Satisfaction

and Turnover Intentions

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the relationship between emotional

labor (surface acting and deep acting) and the outcome variables would

be significantly moderated by gender. To test this idea, we first

performed separate multiple regression analyses for men and women that

simultaneously linked each of the emotional labor variables (surface

acting – cover, surface acting - pretend, deep acting) and covariates

(hours worked per week, emotional display rules, the three affect

variables) with job satisfaction and turnover intentions. We then

tested whether each of the coefficients in these analyses were

significantly different for men and women using Fisher’s r-to-z test

(Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003). A significant difference between

coefficients suggests that gender moderates the particular

relationship in question.

As previously noted, we controlled for felt emotions and

display rules because past research has linked these variables to

emotional labor and employee outcomes and we wanted to rule them out

as spurious causes of observed relationships in the present

investigation. We also controlled for the average number of hours

28


worked per week because of the observation in the current study that

men and women differed in the number of hours they typically worked

per week. All variables in the regression models except hours worked

per week were mean centered. In each analysis, no VIF value was

greater than 1.75, which is substantially below the commonly noted

cutoff value of 4 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) for indicating

multicollinearity (more details on the specific VIF values are

available from the first author).

Consistent with the correlation results, the surface acting

strategy of covering up emotions was significantly associated with

both outcomes for women (see Table 4). Among female RNs, covering up

felt emotions was associated with lower levels of job satisfaction and

a higher intention to leave one’s job. This result is consistent with

a number of other studies examining the effects of surface acting on

job-related outcomes (Bono & Vey, 2005; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002;

Diefendorff, Erickson, Grandey, & Dahling. 2011; Grandey 2003). The

surface acting strategy of pretending and deep acting were not

significantly related to job satisfaction or turnover intention for

women. Also shown in Table 4, deep acting was positively related to

job satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions for

men, but neither surface acting strategy was significantly related to

the outcomes for men.

29


To test the interaction effects proposed in Hypotheses 3a and 3b

for surface acting, we examined whether the slopes for pretending and

covering were significantly different for men and women (see Table 4).

Only one of the four coefficients were significantly different for men

and women: the relationship of surface acting – cover with job

satisfaction. Inspection of the coefficient reveals that the

relationship was significant and negative for women and nonsignificant

and positive for men. Although the positive coefficient for men was

not significantly different from zero (likely because of the low

statistical power due to the relatively small sample size for men), it

was significantly different from the negative coefficient for women

(which was also significantly different from zero). Although these

results reveal that gender acted as a significant moderator, they do

not conform to the exact prediction of Hypothesis 3a in that the

relationship is not significant and positive for men, though it was

significant and negative for women. As such, Hypotheses 3a and 3b

were not supported, though there was a trend in the direction proposed

by Hypothesis 3a (and it was likely not supported because of the small

sample size for men and resulting low statistical power).

Next, we tested whether gender moderated the effects of deep

acting. Past research has found equivocal effects of deep acting on

attitudinal outcomes, ignoring gender. We anticipated that such an

30


effect would be observed for female nurses, but that male nurses may

actually receive some benefit from deep acting. Hypotheses 3c and 3d

were fully supported. Unlike their female colleagues for whom no

significant deep acting effects emerged, men performing more deep

acting reported higher levels of job satisfaction and lower turnover

intention.

Discussion

Hochschild’s (1983) suggestion that an emotional status shield

protects those with higher status from engaging in emotional labor is

affirmed by our findings from a sample of nurses in the U.S. Male

nurses in the sample (1) perceived that they are held to fewer display

rules, or emotional expectations, than women; (2) engaged in less

emotional labor in the form of pretending to feel and deep acting than

women; and (3) men who engaged in high levels of emotional labor

either benefitted or were not harmed by the emotional labor, as

compared with women. In particular, higher scores on covering felt

emotions were related to worse scores on outcomes (dissatisfaction,

high intention to turnover) for women, but there was no such

relationship for men. Further, for men higher scores on deep acting

were positively related to better scores on outcomes (satisfaction,

low intention to turnover), whereas women received no such benefit

(i.e., the effect was nonsignificant for women). These effects were

31


observed despite the fact that the intensity of experienced emotions

was similar for male and female nurses. This suggests that the

emotional content of the work was not driving the observed effects,

despite stereotypes that men and women tend to differ in emotionality

(Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Such stereotypes may persist because

of gender differences in emotional labor rather than differences in

felt emotion.

Following emotion management theory, our findings suggest that

men in the traditionally female occupation of nursing may be shielded

from the negative effects of emotional labor in ways that women in the

profession are not. Covering emotions has been generally shown to

reduce individual well-being (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2003).

However, in the present study, male nurses with higher levels of

covering emotions did not report lower job satisfaction nor higher

turnover intentions, while higher levels of covering emotion did

correspond to lower job satisfaction and higher intention to turnover

for women.

In line with our theoretical framework, these findings suggest

that the male nurses in our sample not only perceived themselves as

less accountable to emotion rules than their female colleagues and

they managed emotions less, but they also earned an additional bonus—

improved overall job satisfaction for the deep acting emotional labor

32


they did perform. The benefits of male nurses’ emotional status shield

appear to vary depending on the form of emotional labor used. For men,

surface acting – cover was not related to job satisfaction (though it

was for women) while deep acting correlated positively with job

satisfaction (though it did not for women). As two types of emotional

labor, this pattern of results suggests that the implications of male

nurses’ emotional status shield depend on the type of emotional labor

examined. Male nurses appear protected from the negative effects of

surface acting experienced by female nurses.

The results of the current study generally support the work of

qualitative researchers studying men in nursing. Floge and Merrill’s

(1986) ethnographic study of male nurses and female physicians found

that even in the stereotypically feminine occupation of nursing, men

benefitted from assumed status privilege (also see Simpson, 2007;

Williams, 1992). Beyond the financial and promotion advantages men in

nursing seem to gain, our findings suggest that they hold themselves

less accountable to the display rules governing emotional labor in the

health care workplace, actually engage in less emotional labor than

women, and, when they do engage in such management, are generally

better off in terms of overall job satisfaction. In effect, the

contours and benefits of men’s status shield are broader and deeper

than initially proposed (Hochschild, 1983) or discussed by other

33


researchers (e.g., Erickson and Ritter, 2001; Goodrum and Stafford,

2003; Lan, 2003).

Based on a gender framing approach, one compelling theoretical

explanation for these differences is the differential cultural status

beliefs internalized by men and women. With greater emphasis on agency

and instrumental and technical competence, some male nurses may

reframe their emotional labor to align with societal ideals of

masculinity (Connell, 2005). In doing so, they may frame emotional

labor as affirming to their masculine identity and indicative of

occupational competence within the nursing role rather than as a sign

of femininity. For some male nurses, emotional labor may be approached

as one of many instrumental tasks they perform as nurses and over

which they are able to exercise control (Ridgeway, 2011). In reframing

the typically feminine, male nurses’ potential agentic approach to

emotion disrupts the hegemonic belief that women are more emotionally

competent. Furthermore, such a reframing disrupts the foundational

dichotomies of women/men, emotion/reason, and expressive/instrumental

competence upon which cultural gender beliefs rest (Fausto-Sterling,

1993; Sprague, 1997). While male nurses overall are found to benefit

in this study, the impact on disrupting the hegemonic gender system

may be an equalizing force for men and women over time. These results

also have the potential to raise new and interesting questions in

34


regard to the established literature on gender role conflict (see

O’Neil 2008 for a review). This body of research suggests that the

restrictive, more traditional gender role socialization of men tends

to be associated with higher levels of gender role conflict and, as a

result, lower levels of psychological well-being. However, Dodson and

Borders (2006), among others, have shown that men employed within non-

traditional occupations are less likely to express rigid, hegemonic

beliefs about gender and to engage in greater emotional expressivity.

In combination with the results reported here, this work suggests that

employment within non-traditional occupations may have a range of

unintended consequences that are positive for men’s well-being and

serve to maintain their privileged status position.

In line with the gender status belief that women’s emotional

labor and carework are natural expressions of who they are, our

findings further suggest that these gendered cultural schemas may not

only render emotional labor invisible (Daniels, 1987) but may also

influence how women interpret and respond to their emotional labor on

the job. Seeing their emotional labor as natural expressions of

femininity rather than labor they control in an agentic sense, women’s

emotional labor may be more depleting than men’s. More specifically,

job satisfaction for female nurses was shown to be either consistent,

regardless of the frequency of emotional labor, or to become more

35


negative as emotion management increased (deep acting yielded

relatively consistent effects, while covering yielded increasingly

negative effects). To be sure, these results are preliminary and

should be interpreted with caution. However, future researchers

should consider investigating the extent to which these relationships

may result from the fact that female nurses view emotional labor as an

expression of their femininity rather than an instrumental aspect of

their paid work (see Bolton, 2005).

To more fully consider how emotional labor is linked to an

emotional status shield, researchers might examine the extent to which

the relationship between male nurses’ emotion management and job

satisfaction stems from boys’ early socialization to exert control

over and conceal their emotions (Brody, 2000; Fivush & Buckner, 2000).

Covering feelings other than anger may, in turn, be more difficult for

women because it is at odds with feeling and display rules and, as

such, may take a greater toll on female nurses’ job satisfaction.

Men’s privileged access to the ideals of agency and control (Jansz,

2000; Ridgeway, 2011) may enable those in traditionally female

occupations to reconstruct their emotion practice as agentic acts

rather than as natural extensions of their gendered selves. Being

instructed from an early age that “boys don’t cry,” men may have more

experience with masking and covering these types of emotions. At the

36


same time, other dimensions of gender socialization may lead them to

frame emotional labor as an accomplishment that reflects and

reinforces their claim to dominant masculinity (Connell, 2005).

Approaching emotional labor as a task to be performed or an aspect of

self to be controlled, male nurses may tap into elements of hegemonic

masculinity that legitimate their claim to masculinity in spite of

their work in a traditionally female occupation. Because men are not

seen as naturally competent at providing care to others (Bradley

1989), any success in this area may provide a psychological benefit

whereas women’s effective performance merely reaffirms that which is

culturally expected of them. As such, the current study suggests that

examining the ways in which status privilege operates through

different types of emotion practice may yield new insights into the

reproduction of inequality.

Pertinent to nursing and health care policy, the present study

integrates emotional labor and gender theories to explain how gender

status shields male nurses from performing as much emotional labor,

while also converting their emotional labor into improved job

satisfaction. This status bonus appears as an unearned reward gained by

men in nursing who make an effort to feel authentic emotions on the

job. Addressing gender inequality in the workplace, further research

is needed to assess the role of the nursing profession and workplace

37


context in shaping male nurses’ internalization of fewer emotional

norms than their female colleagues. Nurse leaders also should

consider the subtle and potentially nonconscious ways that gender

frames emotional labor. Given the potential buffering effects of an

agentic and instrumental approach to emotional labor as theorized

here, nursing culture and training practices might emphasize these

approaches for meeting the emotional demands of the nursing role in a

manner conducive to increased job satisfaction and decreased intention

to turnover.

Results of the current study should be interpreted with caution

given the limitations posed by the small number of male nurses in the

sample and the small representation of nurses of color. While

reflective of men’s overall representation in nursing (IOM, 2010),

further research that compares men and women in nursing should seek

out larger samples of men. The fact that significant interaction

effects emerged from the analysis despite the small number of men

should be encouraging to researchers who might replicate the study

using more diverse samples. A second implication for future research

on gender and emotion concerns the direct testing of agentic vs.

expressive approaches to emotion as an explanation of gender

differences. Future researchers should incorporate measures of an

individual’s perception of emotional labor processes, as agentic and

38


under one’s control or a dispositional expression of self. Researchers

may also need to re-evaluate the measures traditionally used to

capture surface and deep acting, as the commonly employed measures

developed by Brotheridge and Lee (2003) may themselves have gendered

assumptions that conflate emotion and gender. In addition, future

researchers may want to assess the extent to which nurses interact

with various role-partners since those working within different

departmental units (e.g., surgery, emergency, critical care) may be

more or less likely to interact with particular role-partners.

Conclusion

The goal of this study was to examine the influence of gender on

the relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction.

Suggesting both an emotional status shield and status bonus among men

in the female-dominated profession of nursing, our findings highlight

the continued pervasiveness of gender’s influence on emotional labor

and its effects. Men appear to take their privileged status to work,

even in work stereotyped as feminine. Gender and emotion scholars

should continue to integrate theory and research in order to better

illuminate the emotion-specific processes that reproduce and disrupt

the hegemonic gender system. As in previous studies on tokenism and

the glass escalator (Williams, 1992, 1993), men in the female-

dominated profession of nursing continue to be a rich source for

39


advancing theoretical and empirical understanding of how gender

operates in contemporary society.

40


References

Alligood, M. R. (2005). Rethinking empathy in nursing education:

Shifting to a developmental view.

Annual Review of Nursing Education, 3, 299-309.

1Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service

roles: The influence of identity.

Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.

doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.3997508

Ashforth, B. E. & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). ‘How can you do it?’: Dirty

work and the challenge of

constructing a positive identity. The Academy of Management Review,

24, 413-434.

doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2202129

Barron, D. N. & West, E. (2007). The emotional costs of caring

incurred by men and women in the

British labour markets. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2160-2171.

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.027

Bellas, M. L. (1999). Emotional labor in academia: The case of

professors. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 96-110.

doi:10.1177/000271629956100107

41


Best, R. G., Downey, R. G., & Jones, R. G. (1997, April). Incumbent

perceptions of emotional work requirements. Paper presented at the 12th

Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St.

Louis, MO.

Bolton, S. (2005). Emotion management in the workplace. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2005). Toward understanding emotional

management at work: A quantitative review of emotional labor

research. In C. E. J. Härtel, W. J. Zerbe, & N. M.

Ashkanasy (Eds.), Emotions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 213-233). New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey,

P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities

to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and

performance measures of emotional

intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780-795.

doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.91.4.780

Bradley, H. (1989). Men’s work, women’s work: A sociological history of the sexual

division of labour in

employment. MN: University of Minnesota Press.

42


Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and

burnout: Comparing two perspectives

of ‘people work’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.

doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1815

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of

resources model of the dynamics of

emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57-67.

doi:10.1037//1076-8998.7.1.57

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of

the emotional labour scale.” Journal of Organizational and Occupational

Psychology, 76, 365-379. doi:10.1348/096317903769647229

Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in

emotional expression: Display rules, infant

temperament, and differentiation. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender

and emotion: Social

psychological perspectives (pp. 24-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Brody, L. R. & Hall, J. A. (2000). Gender, emotion, and expression. In

M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 338-349). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

43


Buerhaus, P. I., Donelan, K., Ulrich, B. T., Norman, L., & Dittus, R.

(2005). Is the shortage of hospital

registered nurses getting better or worse? Findings from two

recent national surveys of RNs.

Nursing Economics, 23(2), 61-96.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Occupational outlook handbook, 2012-

13 edition, registered nurses. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Healthcare/Registered-nurses.htm

Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental

socialization of emotion expression:

Gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5,

80–88. doi:10.1037/1528-

3542.5.1.80

Chau, S. L., Dahling, J. J., Levy, P. E., Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). A

predictive study of emotional labor

and turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1151-1163.

doi:10.1002/job.617

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Cottingham, M. D. (2014). Recruiting men, constructing manhood: How

health care organizations

44


mobilize masculinities as nursing recruitment strategy. Gender &

Society, 28, 133–156. doi:10.1177/0891243213509005

Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional

affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-606. doi:10.1002/job.4030140609

Cross, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls’ jobs for the boys? Men,

masculinity and non-traditional

occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 9, 204-226.

doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00156

Daniels, A. K. (1987). Invisible work. Social Problems, 34, 403–415.

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The

dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339-359. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.001

Diefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A. A., & Dahling, J.

(2011). Emotional display rules as work

unit norms: A multilevel analysis of emotional labor among

nurses. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 16, 170-186. doi:10.1037/a0021725.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and

consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 284-294. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.284

45


Dodson, T. A., & Borders, L. D. (2006). Men in traditional and

nontraditional careers: Gender role attitudes, gender role

conflict, and job satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly, 54, 283-

296. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00194.x

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory

and of sex differences and

similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner

(Eds.), The developmental

psychology of gender (pp. 123–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ekman, P. (1973). Cross culture studies of facial expression. In P.

Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and facial

expression: A century of research in review (pp. 162-222). New York: Academic

Press.

England, P. (1992). Comparable worth: Theories and evidence. New York: Aldine

De Gruyter.

Erickson, R. J., & C. Ritter. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and

inauthenticity: Does gender matter?

Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146-163. doi:10.2307/3090130

Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). Five sexes: Why male and female are not

enough. The Sciences, 33(2), 20-24. doi:10.1002/j.2326-

1951.1993.tb03081.x

46


Fisher, C. D. (2000). Moods and emotions while working: Missing pieces

of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185-202.

Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. T. (1991). Confusing one person

with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of

social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656-674.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.656

Fivush, R., & Buckner, J. P. (2000). Gender, sadness, and depression:

The development of emotional focus through gendered discourse. In

A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp.

232-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Floge, L., & Merrill, D. M. (1986). Tokenism reconsidered: Male nurses

and female physicians in a

hospital setting. Social Forces, 64, 925-947. doi:10.1093/sf/64.4.925

Garside, R. B., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2002). Socialization of discrete

negative emotions: Gender

differences and links with psychological distress. Sex Roles, 47,

115–128.

doi:10.1023/A:1021090904785

Goodrum, S., & Stafford, M. C. (2003). The management of emotions in

the criminal justice system.

Sociological Focus, 36(3), 179-196. doi:10.1080/00380237.2003.10570723

47


Gould, D. B. (2009). Moving politics: Emotion and ACT UP’S fight against AIDS.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new

way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 5, 95-110. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When ‘the show must go on:’ Surface and deep

acting as determinants of

emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of

Management Journal, 46, 86-

96. doi:10.2307/30040678

Grandey, A. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Rupp, D. E. (Eds). (2012).

Emotional Labor in the 21st

Century: Diverse Perspectives on Emotion Regulation at Work, NY: Psychology

Press/Routledge.

Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Le, Y. L. (2009). Emotional contagion

and empathy. In J. Decety & W.

Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 19-30). Boston: MIT

Press.

Heikes, E. J. (1991). When men are the minority: The case of men in

nursing. Sociological Quarterly,

32, 389-401. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00165.x

48


Hochschild, A. R. (1983/2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human

feeling. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1990). Ideology and emotion management: A

perspective and path for future research.

In T. H. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp.

117-143). Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.

Hülsheger, U. R. & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of

emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 361-389.

doi:10.1037/a0022876.

Husso, M., & Hirvonen, H. (2012). Gendered agency and emotions in the

field of care work. Gender,

Work and Organization, 19, 29-51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

0432.2011.00565.x

International Council of Nurses. 2006. The global nursing shortage: Priority areas

for intervention.

Geneva, Switzerland: International Council of Nurses.

Institute of Medicine. 2010. The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing

Health. National

Academy of Sciences.

49


Jansz, J. (2000). Masculine identity and restrictive emotionality. In

A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and

emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 166-186). Cambridge:

Cambridge University

Press.

Johnson, H. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Service with a smile: Do

emotional intelligences, gender, and

autonomy moderate the emotional labor process? Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology,

12, 319-333. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.319

Lan, P. (2003). Working in a neon cage: Bodily labor of cosmetics

saleswomen in Taiwan. Feminist

Studies, 29(1), 21-45. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178467.

Lewis, P. (2005). Suppression or expression: An exploration of emotion

management in a special care

baby unit. Work, Employment, and Society, 19, 565-581.

doi:10.1177/0950017005055673

Littlejohn, L., Campbell, J., Collins-McNeil, J. & Khanyile, T.

(2012). Nursing shortage: A comparative

analysis. International Journal of Nursing 1, 22-27. Retrieved from

http://www.ijnonline.com/index.php/ijn/article/view/21.

50


Lively, K. J. (2000). Reciprocal emotion management: Working together

to maintain stratification in

private law firms. Work and Occupations, 27(1), 32-63.

doi:10.1177/0730888400027001003

Lovell, B., Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2009). Gender

differences in the application of

communication skills, emotional labor, stress-coping and well-

being among physicians. The

International Journal of Medicine, 2, 273-278.

Lucero, R. J., Lake, E. T., & Aiken, L. H. (2010). Nursing care

quality and adverse events in U.S.

hospitals. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 2185-2195. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2702.2010.03250.x

Lutz, C. A. (1988). Unnatural emotions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of

detecting interactions and moderator

effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.114.2.376

51


O’Lynn, C. E. (2007). Men, caring, and touch. In C. E. O’Lynn & R. E.

Tranbarger (Eds.), Men in

nursing: History, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 121-141). NY: Springer

Publishing.

Omdahl, B. L., & O’Donnell, C. (1999). Emotional contagion, empathic

concern and communicative responsiveness as variables affecting

nurses’ stress and occupational commitment. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 29, 1351-1359. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01021.x

O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing twenty-five years of research on

men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale:

New research paradigms and clinical implications. The Counseling

Psychologist, 36, 358-445. doi:10.1177/0011000008317057

Oulton, J. (2006). The global nursing shortage: an overview of issues

and actions. Policy, Politics &

Nursing Practice, 7(3), 34S-39S. doi:10.1177/15271544062893968

Plutchik, R. (1962). The emotions: Facts, theories, and a new model. New York:

Random House.

Quinn, R. P. & Staines, G. L. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment Survey:

Descriptive statistics, with comparison data from the 1969-70 and the 1972-73 surveys.

Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research,

University of Michigan.

52


Rafferty, A. E. & Griffin, M. A. (2009). Job satisfaction in

organizational research. In D. A. Buchanan &

A. Bryman (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp.

196-212). Los

Angeles, CA: Sage.

Rashotte, L. S. & Webster Jr., M. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social

Science Research, 34, 618-633.

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.05.004

Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender

inequality. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 62, 218–235.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes

social relations. Gender &

Society, 23, 145-160. doi:10.1177/0891243208330313

Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the

modern world. NY:

Oxford University Press.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2004). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and

backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

87, 157-176. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239

53


Rueckert, L. (2011). Gender differences in empathy. In D. J.

Scapaletti (Ed.), Psychology of empathy (pp. 221-234). Hauppauge, NY:

Nova Science Publishers.

Russell, J. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.

Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace

emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on

physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 163-183.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<163::AID-JOB37>3.0.CO;2-L

Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation

of emotional labor, affect, work

withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 116-136.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215086

Scully, D. (1988). Convicted rapists’ perceptions of self and victim:

Role taking and emotions. Gender &

Society, 2, 200-213. doi:10.1177/089124388002002005

Shields, S. (2000). Thinking about gender, thinking about theory:

Gender and emotional experience. In A.

H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp.

3-23). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

54


Simon, R. W. & Nath, L. K. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United

States: Do men and women differ

in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American

Journal of Sociology, 109, 1137-

1176.

Simpson, R. (2007). Emotional labour and identity work of men in

caring roles. In P. Lewis and R.

Simpson (Eds.) Gendering Emotions in Organizations (pp. 57–73). NY:

Palgrave.

Sloan, M. (2007). The ‘real self’ and inauthenticity: The importance

of self-concept anchorage for

emotional experiences in the workplace. Social Psychology Quarterly 70,

305-318.

doi:10.1177/019027250707000308

Smith-Lovin, L. (2003). They got the feeling, but they missed the

Marx: Twenty years after The managed

heart. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American

Sociological Association, Section on

the Sociology of Emotions, Atlanta, GA.

Sprague, J. (1997). Holy men and big guns: The can[n]on in social

theory. Gender & Society, 11(1), 88-

107. doi:10.1177/089124397011001006

55


Stenross, B., & Kleinman, S. (1989). The highs and lows of emotional

labor: Detectives encounters with

criminals and victims. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17, 435-452.

doi:10.1177/089124189017004003

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Theodosius, C. (2008). Emotional labour in health care: The unmanaged heart of

nursing. London:

Routledge.

Thoits, P. (1990). Emotional deviance: Research agendas. In T. D.

Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in

the sociology of emotions (pp. 180-206). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Wessel, J. L., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Supportive when not supported?

Male responses to negative

climates for women. Sex Roles, 66, 94-104. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-

0058-6

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-

151.

doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002

Williams, C. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in

the ‘female’ professions. Social

Problems, 39, 253-267.

56


Williams, C. (Ed.) (1993). Doing women’s work: Men in non-traditional occupations.

London: Sage.

57

Examining Men's Status Shield and Status Bonus

Documents

Transcript of Examining Men's Status Shield and Status Bonus