NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 hostility, are more altruistic, optimistic, and flexible, and are more inclined to

246 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 hostility, are more altruistic, optimistic, and flexible, and are more inclined to

be helpful (Forgas, Bower, & Moylan, 1990; Hertel & Fiedler, 1994; Isen, 1987). Consistent with these findings, Carnevale and Isen (1986) found that individuals experiencing positive affect are less likely to adopt contentious negotiating strategies than others. Furthermore, Baron (1990) and Forgas (1998b) found that individuals in a positive mood are more conciliatory, make more concessions, and are more likely to reach a compromise than people in a negative mood. In a follow-up study, Forgas (1998b) demon- strated that happy people were more confident during the negotiation process, were more assertive and persistent in reaching their desired goals, behaved more cooperatively, and were more willing to use integrative strategies and make reciprocal deals than were those in a negative mood.

While positive affect may be advantageous in negotiations for which an integrative agreement is desired, negative mood may facilitate better outcomes in situations where a ‘tough bargainer’ image is required (Wall, 1991). A tough bargaining strategy is appropriate where the stakes for each negotiator are high and where the negotiation script calls for tough and competitive bargaining. As such, negative affect is functional in negotiations where an integrative result is untenable. Negative affect may also serve an important informational function (Schwarz, 1990), enabling actors to develop strategies that are appropriate to the environment. Van de Vliert (1985) proposed that, by intensifying perceived and experienced conflict in the negotiation processes, negative affect motivates the actors to resolve the conflict. Consistent with this rationale, Daly (1991) suggests that, in a nego- tiation setting, anger can be used to highlight the importance of a given issue to a negotiator, and motivate the actor to persist with negotiations. In con- clusion, both positive and negative affect may have positive consequences for negotiations, depending upon the negotiation context. That is, whether an integrative or an all-or-nothing solution is desired, positive affect facilitates negotiations that are integrative and collaborative. Negative emotions, on the other hand, promote more competitive bargaining.

Emotional Labor

The final aspect of emotion in interpersonal relationships that we cover is emotional labor. First proposed by Hochschild (1983), emotional labor was one of the earlier foci of research into emotions in organizational settings, but has continued to be an important component of research in emotions in work settings. The basis of emotional labor is that many jobs and occupations, especially those, such as service work, which involve interacting with clients or customers, entail strong norms and/or expectations regarding displays of emotion. Such explicit norms are often reflected in recruitment strategies or included in job descriptions where it is made clear that the job involves smiling faces (Ashkanasy et al., 2002). These norms can also be evident in

247 implicit norms reflected in socialization rituals accompanying entry into the

E MOTION IN O RGANIZATIONS

organization’s culture. In this respect, Kruml and Geddes (2000) noted that service jobs are typically less valued thanother jobs and oftenattracted lower rates of remuneration (see also Humphrey, 2000).

Hochschild (1983) posited a more insidious effect of emotional labor on employee attitudes and behavior. Specifically, she proposed that, if emotions such as anger, frustration, or resentment are ‘bottled up’ rather than expressed, the actor can become susceptible to outbursts of dysfunctional behavior. The implicationof this is that emotion al labor canresult in impaired self-control, and is echoed by the ‘ego depletion’ model proposed by Muraven, Tice, and Baumeister (1998). According to this model, people have very limited capacity for self-regulation, and an act of self-regulation in one domainis likely to result ina reduced capacity for self-regulationina subsequent behavioral domain. Since emotional labor involves the regulation of emotional expression, it is likely to deplete employees’ self-regulatory resources and, hence, to decrease their ability to control their behavior. Ashkanasy et al. (2002) note further that emotional labor leads to ‘emotional dissonance’, whereby there is an innate conflict between the employees’ displayed emotions and their true inner feelings. Like cognitive dissonance, emotional dissonance is associated with the experience of a negative affective state characterized by anxiety and discomfort (Harmon-Jones, 2001). In this respect, emotional labor becomes an ‘affective event’, in that it serves to trigger negative affective responses.

Moreover, employees experiencing emotional dissonance are not always successful when it comes to masking their true emotions. Ashkanasy (2003a) cites extensive research by Ekman and his colleagues (e.g., see Ekman, 1992; Ekman, Friesen, & O’Sullivan, 1988) that demonstrates that ‘true’ smiles are accompanied by physiological facial ‘markers’ that are not present when smiles are faked. This sets up an interactive spiral with cus- tomers who detect the inauthentic expression, and conclude that the service agent is providing poor service, leading in turn to increasing emotional labor on the behalf of the service provider (Grove & Fisk, 1990; Mann, 1999; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987).