Ravid, S., Rafaeli, A., & Grandey, A. (in press). Expressions of anger in Israeli workplaces: the special place of customer interactions. Human Resource Management Review.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expressions of Anger in Israeli Workplaces:
The Special Place of Customer Interactions
Shy Ravid Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Faculty of Industrial Engineering and
Management Haifa 32000, ISRAEL Tel.: +972-4-8292021 E-mail: [email protected]
Anat Rafaeli
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Haifa 32000, ISRAEL Tel.: +972-4-8294421 Fax: +972-4-8295688
E-mail: [email protected]
Alicia Grandey
Department of Psychology Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 Tel.: 814-863-1867 Email: [email protected]
Expressions of Anger in Israeli Workplaces:
The Special Place of Customer Interactions
Abstract
We examine norms regarding displays of anger in interactions with different target
persons in Israeli organizations. Israeli university students who had been employed in the
last year were asked about displaying anger to managers, subordinates, coworkers,
customers and customer service representatives. For comparison, data about displays of
another negative emotion – fear – were also collected. Our predictions – that anger
expression is influenced by the power of the target person – were supported. There was
stronger agreement that anger should be suppressed with managers than with coworkers
and subordinates. Agreement that anger should be suppressed was also stronger regarding
displays toward customers than toward coworkers, subordinates and managers. Norms of
suppressing anger were particularly strong for displays toward customers, and far
stronger than the parallel of customers’ displays toward customer service representatives.
These finding are suggested to imply the penetration of global customer service norms to
the Israeli economy.
Expressions of Anger in Israeli Workplaces:
The Special Place of Customer Interactions
Introduction
Socially learned norms inform individuals whether and how to express emotions
in social interactions (Ekman, 1972; Ekman & Oster, 1979). These norms, sometimes
referred to as "display rules", vary by the type of emotion, as well as to whom and when
the emotion is felt (Ekman, 1993, p. 384; Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznetsova
& Krupp, 1998; Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama & Petrova, 2005). Norms are also culture-
specific, since they are learned in the early stages of childhood socialization (Buss &
Kiel, 2004; Saarni, 1979). Particularly important are norms about the expression or
control of felt anger, because of the possible negative social implications of anger
expressions (Saarni & von Salisch, 1993; Underwood, 1997; von Salisch & Vogelgesang,
2005).
Display rules are also relevant to organizational interactions (Hochschild, 1983;
Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; 1989), since norms for emotion displays are connected to
organizational values and goals (Martin, Knopoff & Beckman, 1998; Van Maanen &
Kunda, 1989). Both in organizations and at the culture level, not all participants
necessarily agree about emotion display rules, suggesting a need to talk about norm
strength, or “the degree to which a norm is widely shared (consensus) and deeply
internalized (potency) among a given aggregate of people” (cf. Jackson, 1965, cited in
Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993: 91).
Research on organizational emotion rules has focused on the effects and
consequences of expectations regarding displayed emotion in work roles (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1993; Elfenbein, 2008; Grandey & Brauburger, 2002; Hareli & Rafaeli,
2008; Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Van Maanen, 1992; Van Maanen &
Kunda, 1989) and has presented display rules as a function of societal norms,
occupational norms, and organizational norms (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). A separate
but complementary stream considers emotion displays as elements of a culture
(Kupperbusch et al., 1999). This line of work attempts to identify explanations for
cultural differences and similarities in emotional displays (Ekman, 1972; Friesen,
1972; Matsumoto, 1993; Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008; Suh, Diener, Oishi, &
Triandis, 1998).
The present paper, consistent with the focus of this special issue, reports on
emotion display rules in the unique culture of Israel, with a further special focus on
anger display rules. Below, we first review the merit of a focus on the display rules
regarding the specific emotion of anger. We then describe the pertinence of
hierarchical power structures in organizations to norms of anger expression, and
connect the relative power of different organizational target persons with anger display
rules. In an empirical study we then compare the perceptions of Israeli college students
who had recent or current employment experience regarding anger display rules
toward different organizational target persons. Our survey asked participants to
indicate whether they felt they should express or suppress anger in interactions with
different target persons in the work context, where the target persons varied in the
status they held in the organizational setting. Our analysis of these data identifies
similarities and differences in norms regarding anger expressions to target persons of
different work status in Israel.
Emotion Display Rules and Specific Emotions
The display of emotion in the workplace follows organizational display rules that
are manipulated through organizational selection, socialization and control processes
(Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; 1989). Thus, emotion display in organizations is subject to
simultaneous and potentially competing effects of social-cultural norms and
organizational norms (Rafaeli & Sutton; 1987; 1989). In fact, display rules tend to be
stronger in work contexts than in general social or home interactions (Bongard & al'Absi,
2003; Lively & Powell, 2006).
Importantly, little is known about how displays of specific emotions vary between
specific people and specific times. Presumably, people adjust their emotion displays to
the context, or as Ekman (1972) put it, they determine which emotions may be displayed
when and to whom. But research on organizational display rules has not specifically
explored displays of discrete emotions in the workplace, instead referring to generally
“negative” or “positive” emotions (Barsade, Brief & Spataro, 2003; Brief & Weiss,
2002). Anger is a specific negative emotion that is known to occur in the workplace
(Fitness, 2000; Glomb, 2002; Grandey et al., 2002) and that may involve a tendency to
harm or strike out at others. Anger display rules are likely to differ from display rules for
other emotions; anger expression is known to be bounded by thresholds of legitimate
expression (Geddes & Callister, 2007), probably because of the potential harm that anger
expressions can have on relationships (Averill, 1982).
An analysis of anger cannot be complete without some comparison to another
discrete negative emotion. As a frame of comparison we therefore examine display rules
for fear. Fear is similar to anger in having a high arousal response with unpleasant
associations and causes. However, anger implies social stratification more than fear
(Tiedens, 2001), and angry agents stand out as powerful while fearful agents are viewed
as weak (Hess, Blairy & Kleck, 2000; Marsh, Adams & Kleck, 2005). From an
employment perspective, where one may want to show dominance and competence,
expressing both fear and anger may result in negative outcomes, but anger expressions
create power differences, while fear expressions convey weakness. Therefore, appearing
anxious and incompetent may be less acceptable in organizational settings than
expressing the negative yet dominant emotion of anger, consistent with Tiedens's (2001)
work.
In fact, some research has suggested that avoiding the appearance of weakness is
central to Israeli identity (Roniger & Feige, 1993). Seeming weak is often referred to as
being a “freier” (a huge insult, meaning a "sucker" in Hebrew slang); as Roniger and
Feige (1993) note, Israelis invest heavily in not looking like a “freier”. Thus, it can be
predicted:
Hypothesis 1: Stronger norms will dictate suppressing displays of fear than
displays of anger, regardless of the person to whom the emotion is
expressed.
Hypothesis 1 distinguishes between displays of fear and anger, but does not
differentiate between the targets to whom the emotion is expressed. However,
expressions of anger are likely to be considered more appropriate when they are
directed by a high-status group member toward a low-status member (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1995; Geddes & Callister, 2007) – for instance, by supervisors wishing to
motivate or discipline lower-status employees (Glomb & Hulin, 1997). Next, we
suggest that the power of the target is likely to determine the extent to which
expressing anger is viewed as legitimate.
Anger Displays toward Different Organizational Target Persons
Research on emotion displays in organizations has focused primarily on displays
required from customer service representatives in their interactions with customers
(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Brotheridge & Lee, 2002;
Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Grandey, Dickter & Sin 2004; Grandey, Fisk & Steiner,
2005; Hochschild, 1983). But some research suggests that display norms govern emotion
displays in various organizational interactions, not only those between customer service
providers and customers. A second goal of this effort, therefore, is to understand whether
in Israel there is a difference between display rules governing interactions toward
customers versus other work targets.
We begin the analysis of anger display rules toward different targets by
examining expressions of anger toward managers. Managers are critical to the
hierarchical foundation of organizations (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Brass, 1984; Pfeffer,
1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Managers typically have more power than their
subordinates, which means that they control key resources such as supplies, information,
and pay (Pfeffer, 1981; Ulrich & Barney, 1984). In comparison, coworkers generally hold
equivalent organizational power (French & Raven, 1959). Emotional expressions are
related to social power or status (Allan & Gilbert, 2002; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008;
Hecht & LaFrance, 1998; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003; Tiedens, 2000), and
people with higher power are generally more at liberty to express their anger as a way to
assert their rank, authority, and control (Allan & Gilbert, 2002: 552; Gibson & Schroeder,
2002: 198; Hochschild, 1983; Scott, 1990). Thus, it can be predicted that expressing
anger will be perceived as more acceptable toward a lower-power individual than toward
a higher-power individual (e.g., from a supervisor rather than toward a supervisor). Many
authors have provided evidence to support this status-driven prediction about anger
display rules or actual expressions, in the workplace as well as other settings (Allan &
Gilbert, 2002; Grandey et al., 2002; Gross & John, 2003; Keltner et al., 2003; Lively &
Powell, 2006; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990; Spratlen, 1995;
Tiedens, Ellsworth, & Mesquita, 2000; Tiedens, 2001; but note that Gibson’s 1997
findings seem to challenge this prediction).
These dynamics may be overpowered by the low power distance that Israel is
known to hold (Hofstede, 1991; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004). A
cultural value of low power distance suggests that cultural norms would not distinguish
between managers and other targets in terms of anger expression. However, since the
work culture in Israel has internalized many global values (e.g., Frenkel, 2008; Shokef &
Erez, 2006), we similarly expect managers in Israel to be perceived as high-power
targets, and therefore expect to find norms of anger suppression with managers more than
with other targets.
Hypothesis 2: Norms dictating suppression of anger will be stronger in
interactions with managers than in interactions with other organizational
members.
Anger Display Rules: Employees to Customers
Customers are rarely compared to organizational members in organizational
research, but the heavy focus on customer service in research on emotion display rules
demands an inclusion of customers in analyses of organizational emotion display rules.
In Israel as elsewhere customers can be critical for employees’ rewards and punishments
(e.g., tips and complaints). Customers evaluate employees in customer service follow-ups
(Bitner, Booms & Tetreault 1990), and such ratings may be used in deciding on
promotions or raises (Fuller & Smith, 1996). Customers are also often a source of
commissions or sales bonuses in Israel as elsewhere (Tidd & Lockard, 1978). As such,
customers may be viewed as having power over employees’ resources. However, the
North American mantra “the customer is always right” (Harris & Reynolds, 2003: 145)
may be less prevalent in Israel. It is therefore unclear how employees in Israel would feel
about expressing their felt negative emotions to customers.
If Israel has accepted North American customer service norms, whereby
customers are considered higher in power than employees, then Israelis should also have
adopted norms regarding suppression of anger toward customers. In fact, we might
expect norms vis-à-vis customers to be similar to those vis-à-vis the other high-status
target, managers. Such norms would follow the US “service with a smile” premise where
any negative emotion toward customers should be suppressed (Fisk & Grandey, 2003;
Mattila, Grandey, & Fisk, 2003; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000).
Very limited work has examined Israel’s customer service culture, and several of the few
existing studies from over 15 years ago suggested that customer service employees were
indeed willing to express negative emotions toward customers (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1990,
and Rafaeli, 1989). We suggest that since that work was conducted, customer service
norms have penetrated Israel's economy, such that display rules prohibiting displays of
anger will be stronger with regard to customers than with regard to equal or lower-status
organizational members:
Hypothesis 3: Norms dictating suppression of anger will be stronger in interactions
with customers than with equal or lower-status organizational members, but
similar to norms vis-à-vis other high status members.
Anger Display Rules: Customers to Customer Service Reps
The relatively high power of customers is paralleled by the relatively low power
of customer service employees (Rafaeli, 1993). The people who hold these entry-level,
boundary-spanning positions are often viewed as lower in status than other organizational
members, as well as lower in status than the customers they are serving. The low status of
customer service representatives is taken for granted in organizational research. For
example, researchers wishing to test the effect of power and status unquestioningly create
low status in a vignette study by referring to a “sales clerk in a retail store” (Cote &
Moskowitz, 2002). The “service with a smile” maxim conveys expectations regarding
acceptable customer service, but also communicates the deference and submission
expected from customer service personnel as lower-status individuals (Hecht &
LaFrance, 1998; LaFrance & Hecht, 1999; Tiedens et al., 2000). As Shamir (1980) noted,
service is close to servility. Given that ‘the customer is king’, the customer has the power
to act angrily, and the employee does not (Hochschild 1983). Presumably, the wages paid
to service personnel are a mechanism for balancing out this uneven exchange, so that
employees will be willing to take whatever the customer doles out. This status
differential suggests that anger expression toward customer service representatives is
much more likely than the reverse.
However, the extent to which this assumption is valid in Israel has not been
tested. Do people in Israel believe they are free to express anger to service
representatives? And do they believe that employees will not express anger back toward
customers? Since we believe that global economic norms and practices have been
integrated into the Israeli economy, we believe this duality of norms will be apparent
with Israeli service employees and customers as well. Hence our next hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Norms regarding anger displays will allow expression of anger by
customers to customer service representatives, but not by customer service
reps to customers.
Methods
To measure perceptions of emotion display norms we adapted a tool described by
Matsumoto et al. (2005; 1998), which was developed to examine norms of emotion
expression in general social interactions. Our adaptation created a tool that assesses
norms regarding displays of emotions by employees to co-workers, supervisors or
customers and by customers to customer service representatives. Our study is a first
attempt to document norms for displaying emotion toward work targets in Israeli
organizations.
Context: Norms of Emotion Expression in Israel
Emotion display rules and in particular anger display rules are a cultural
attribute (Ekman, 1972; Friesen, 1972; Matsumoto et al., 2005; 1998), and
Trompenaars and Hanmpden-Turner (1998) found Israeli employees to be more
emotionally expressive at work than employees in other countries (e.g., the USA, UK,
Canada, Japan, and China). A majority of Israeli respondents told Trompenaars and
Hanmpden-Turner (1998) that they would express emotions they felt at work. This
finding is consistent with other descriptions of Israeli culture. Mayseless and Salomon
(2003) as well as Katriel (1986) mention "frankness" as a unique character of Israeli
behavior.
"Dugri" in Israeli slang is a popular descriptor of Israelis, conveying people as
frank and direct in social interactions. This cultural tendency legitimates open
communication and places particular value on the open expression of anger (Margalit
& Mauger, 1984). In a similar vein, Israel has been described as having weak
"expressive boundaries" (Shamir & Melnik, 2002), meaning that people easily carry
over their thoughts and feelings into their overt behavior. Shamir and Melnik (2002)
describe Israelis as open, candid and direct, freely disclosing their opinions and
emotions. Accordingly, North Americans who work with Israelis are argued by Shamir
and Melnik (2002) to characterize Israelis as genuine and transparent, so that "what
you see is what you get".
In short, social expectations in Israel do not assume high levels of politeness.
However, it is unclear whether or how this norm manifests in interactions with
authority figures. In this culture noted for frankness, we are looking specifically at
norms for open expression of anger toward people of higher organizational status, and
toward customers.
Participants
A sample of 108 undergraduate and graduate business and engineering students
completed the survey in return for partial course credit. Table 1 reports the demographic
profile of the sample, which included 51 males, and had an average age of 24.84,
(SD=2.54). All respondents were at least 18 years old, most (79%) had held a steady job
during the past year, and a large number had experience in customer service positions
(65.7%). Some of the participants had previous managerial experience (52.8%). This
sample was selected to represent the future workforce of Israeli businesses. Their
perceptions were presumed to represent a desirable combination of some work
experience (which would often involve customers) and observations of the work
environments through their own experience as customers.
Insert Table 1 about Here
In completing the survey, participants were asked to focus on their most recent
job experience. Participants without experience with a particular target person were asked
for their understanding of what they thought they should do with such a target person.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through class lists, asked to read and sign a consent
form and then given a copy of a 4-page survey. They were told that the purpose of the
study was to identify perceptions of acceptable emotional displays in organizations, and
were promised that all responses would remain anonymous and confidential and would
be used only for research purposes. Survey completion took approximately 20 minutes.
Control Variables
Employment experience: Three experience indicators were collected at the end
of the survey: (1) whether respondents had held a paid job during the past year; (2)
whether they had ever worked or currently worked in a service job; (3) whether they had
ever held or currently held a managerial position.
Demographic attributes: Respondents were also asked to indicate their sex and
age.
Dependent Variables
Perceived norms of emotional display were assessed through an adapted version
of Matsumoto et al.'s (2005) DRAI (Display Rules Assessment Inventory). The original
measure addressed six social targets (e.g., parent, older sibling, close friend) and 7
emotions (anger, contempt, disgust, sadness fear, happiness, surprise). We adapted the
measure to include five organizational targets (manager, co-worker, subordinate,
customer, customer service representative) and two emotions (anger and fear). To avoid
confusion each of the emotions and each of the targets were defined in the survey, as
summarized in Table 2.
Insert Table 2 about here
The survey included separate sections for each target person, and each section
opened with instructions for the relevant target person. For example, the section assessing
displays with customer service representatives opened as follows:
Please think of a specific CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE that you
have interacted with as a customer …[definition of Customer Service
Representative as in Table 2…]. What do you believe you should do if you are
interacting with a customer service representative and you feel each of the
emotions listed below?
For each pair (target person and emotion) participants were asked to choose one
of the following responses: (A) Show it more than I feel it; (B) Show it as I feel it ; (C)
Show it less than I feel it ; (D) Show it but with another expression; (E) Hide it by
showing nothing (F) Hide it by showing something else; (G) Other. These responses
indicate five expressive modes: expression, de-amplification, amplification, qualification,
and masking of emotion. Participants also indicated the gender of the person they thought
of while responding, and the frequency of the interactions they had with this person,
except for the case of a customer service representative where the frequency question was
worded: "How often do you interact with customer service reps in general?"
Findings
Data Coding: Emotion Suppression vs. Emotion Expression
Analyzing the full set of responses with the five targets and two emotions created
too much complexity, making it difficult to test our hypotheses. The responses to the
survey were categorical in nature, and therefore could not be averaged. (i.e., it does not
make sense to average “Show it more than I feel it, Show it as I feel it and Show it but
with another expression.”) We therefore recoded the responses into two categories that
made it possible to address our primary research questions. We created a dichotomous
dependent variable, whereby responses were coded either as suppression or as genuine
expression of the emotion. Suppressing the emotion (coded 1) included responses C, D, E
or F in the original scale; expressing the emotion (coded 0) included responses A and B
in the original scale.1
This recode process means that our findings describe norms
regarding the extent to which anger and fear should be suppressed or expressed.
Insert Table 3 about here
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 summarizes the reported frequency of suppressing anger and fear in
interactions with customers, customer service reps, managers, subordinates and
coworkers. The pattern of frequencies shows that suppressing anger varied widely across
targets, ranging from 30.56% to 95.37%, while suppression of fear was quite uniform,
ranging only between 87.85% and 99.07%.
Data Analysis
We used a generalized linear model with the Logit link function to test the
distribution of the dichotomous dependent variable. Each participant provided responses
regarding more than one target person, so we applied a model based on the GEE
(Generalized Estimating Equations) methodology, which fits an analysis of correlated
observations (Liang & Zeger, 1986). The demographic variables listed in Table 1 were
included as control variables in all of the analyses.
1 A potential concern of this recode is that the aggregation of four categories into a value of 1 and only two categories to value of 0 would create unbalanced results, and more responses would fall into the "suppression norms" value that represents four original categories. However, the frequencies reported in Table 3 rule out this bias since the aggregated variable varied widely across targets. It is clear from Table 3 that the recode process did not create a systematic bias in the results.
Anger Displays to Different Target Persons
A first set of analyses tested whether suppression norms varied between
interaction targets. Emotion suppression was the dependent variable regressed on target
person as the independent (dummy) variable. Score statistics for type 3 GEE analysis are
presented in Table 4, and show a significant effect of type of emotion (χ2(X)=5.01,
p<.01), meaning that suppression rules differentiate between the emotions. Target person
also had a significant effect (χ2(X)=23.79, p<.0001), indicating differences in the
suppression norms with different target persons. The interaction of emotion and target
person was also significant (χ2(X)=10.13, p<.05), suggesting differences in suppression
norms for different emotions with different target persons.
Insert Table 4 about here
Displays of Anger versus Displays of Fear
Hypothesis 1, based on the premise that people want to avoid an appearance of
weakness, predicted that expressions of fear will be viewed as less acceptable than
expressions of anger, regardless of the target to whom the emotion is expressed. Tables 3
and 5 show that this prediction was largely supported. It was supported with customer
service representative (CSR) (Panger=30.56%, Pfear=95.24%, OR=48.85, χ2
(1)=51.67,
p<.0001), manager (Panger=82.41%, Pfear=99.07%, OR=23.07, χ2
(1)=10.15, p<.01),
subordinate (Panger=42.59%, Pfear=98.10%, OR=73.74, χ2
(1)=33.06, p<.0001) and
coworker (Panger=39.81%, Pfear=87.85%, OR=11.57, χ2
(1)=45.94, p<.0001). Only the
results regarding expressions of anger and fear toward customers did not show a
significant difference (Panger=95.37%, Pfear=99.07%, OR=5.17, χ2
(1)=2.17, p>.10).Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was largely supported.
Insert Table 5 about here
Displays of Anger to Managers versus Subordinates and Coworkers
Hypothesis 2 recognized differences in expressions of anger toward different
targets, and suggested that stronger norms would compel suppressing anger toward
managers than toward other organizational targets. To test this prediction we contrasted
anger suppression toward managers and toward subordinates and coworkers. As
presented in Tables 3 and 6, Hypothesis 2 was supported: 82.41% of the respondents
indicated that they would suppress anger toward managers – significantly more than
toward subordinates (Psub=42.59%, OR=.15, χ2
(1)=37.54, p<.0001) and coworkers
(Pco=39.81%, OR=.13, χ2
(1)=45.75, p<.0001).
These findings thus suggest that Israeli norms indeed dictate greater suppression
of anger expressions toward people with greater power (i.e., managers) than toward
people with less power (i.e., subordinates) or equal power (i.e., coworkers). The
alternative, that Israel’s low power distance would reduce this effect, was not found.
Anger suppression in Israel appears in our data to follow a norm of suppression with
higher power targets (managers) to a greater degree than with lower power targets
(subordinates), fully supporting our Hypothesis 2.
Displays of Anger to Customers versus Subordinates and Coworkers
Hypothesis 3 predicted greater suppression of anger toward customers relative to
equal or lower-status organizational members. As presented in Tables 3 and 6,
Hypothesis 3 was fully supported: 95.37 % of respondents reported that anger toward a
customer should be suppressed, a proportion significantly higher than that calling for
suppression of anger toward a subordinate (Psub=42.59%, OR=.03, χ2
(1)=49.61, p<.0001)
and a coworker (Pco=39.81%, OR=.03, χ2
(1)=56.59, p<.0001). Indeed, the proportion of
respondents reporting that anger toward a customer should be suppressed was even
greater than that calling for suppression of anger toward a manager (Pmgr=82.41%,
OR=.22, χ2
(1)=9.07, p<.01). Thus, our data suggest that customers in Israel can expect to
be treated with greater politeness and fewer anger displays than all other targets.
Insert Table 6 about here
Displays of Anger by Employees to Customers versus by Customers to Customer Service Reps.
Hypothesis 4 suggested an inequality regarding expressions of anger, predicting
that employees are more limited in how they may express felt anger toward customers
than the reverse. The results of this analysis, as summarized in Tables 3 and 6, clearly
support Hypothesis 4. The proportion of people who indicated that a CSR should
suppress anger toward a customer was significantly greater than the proportion saying
that a customer should suppress anger toward a CSR (Pcust=95.37 % , Pcsr=30.56%,
OR=.02, χ2(1)=67.20, p<.0001). Indeed, almost all participants (95%) noted that CSRs
need to avoid expressing anger toward customers, while only 30% of our respondents
thought that customers should suppress anger toward CSRs.
Our data confirmed that people in Israel are generally more reluctant to
express fear than to express anger (Hypothesis 1). The results also suggest that
Israelis view the suppression of anger as more important with higher-status
individuals (managers) than with lower or equal status individuals (co-workers or
subordinates) (Hypothesis 2). One particular group to which Israelis do not believe
that anger should be displayed is customers (Hypothesis 3), and Israeli norms
prescribe suppression of anger by employees toward customers significantly more
than by customers toward employees (Hypothesis 4).
Discussion
Our study examines norms about expressing anger and fear in organizational
interactions in Israel. Our findings show that in Israel, norms against displaying feelings
of anger are weaker than norms against displaying fear. However, norms regarding anger
suppression differentiate between targets. In Israel, anger display norms strongly prohibit
expressing anger toward managers, far more so than toward subordinates, and the greatest
suppression appears to be toward customers. Expressing anger toward customers is far
less normative than toward coworkers, subordinates and even managers.
We also show that uneven norms govern anger expressions in interactions
between customers and customer service representatives. In Israel, customer service
employees are very limited in their ability to display their genuine feelings toward
customers as has been shown to be the case in other countries (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987,
1989), while customers are free to express their anger toward customer service
employees. These expectations from customer service employees are however unique for
the expression of anger, and do not hold for the other negative emotion we examined –
fear.
Our data are of course somewhat limited, in that they reflect only self-
reported perceptions of students. However, our participants were working in a
wide range of organizations, and they represent the forthcoming community
of organizational employees. So we presume these responses to be indicative
of the Israeli workforce.
It is also problematic that we could not assess the intensity of the
anger imagined by the participants. For example, if the intensity of anger
imagined in interactions with managers was lower than with other target
persons, it might be less necessary to suppress its display. Reported
observations of real-life customer service interactions seem consistent with
our analysis (cf. Rafaeli, 1989), so our findings do seem to capture the real
nature of emotion displays in Israel. But self-reports may differ from actual
behavior, so additional observation studies such as Rafaeli (1989) may be an
appropriate complement to the picture that we have drawn.
Theoretical Contributions
Our analyses connect two broad streams of research: research on emotion and
emotion displays in organizations (Ashforth and Humphry, 1993; Grandey et al., 2005;
Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1989), and research on status and power
relations in organizations (French & Raven, 1959; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). This
connection is tested in light of the unique Israeli culture and context, where open
communication (“Dugri”) and the avoidance of weakness (“Freier”) are key values
(Katriel, 1986; Margalit & Mauger, 1984; Mayseless & Salomon, 2003; Roniger & Feige,
1993; Shamir & Melnik, 2002; Trompenaars & Hanmpden-Turner, 1998).
By focusing on two specific emotions in a specific culture and with specific target
persons we offer a novel direction for research on emotion in organizations. In a way, our
findings refine former claims about Israel as being affectively expressive, as proposed by
Trompenaars and Hanmpden-Turner (1998), by showing that there is no overarching
norm of emotion expression. Rather, norms seem to vary in the extent to which they
restrict the expression of certain emotions toward certain target persons.
Few researchers have looked at norms of emotion display outside the customer
service setting (Tschan, Rochat & Zapf, 2005). We show this idea to be important in the
diverse and emotionally “open” culture of Israel. By distinguishing between different
target persons we implicitly distinguish between different roles that individuals may hold
in organizations. By focusing on emotion suppression we also offer a novel direction,
since previous empirical research has primarily focused on the idea of "service with a
smile" or “manufactured emotion” (Grandey & Brauburger, 2002; Grandey et al., 2005;
Hochschild, 1983; Pugh, 2001; Van Maanen, 1992). We suggest that it is also important
to look at norms for “service without a frown” as a form of emotion display rules.
Customers as High-Status Organizational Members
Our findings can be argued to suggest that customers have become high-status
targets of Israeli organizations, since we show that employees are expected to restrain
themselves from showing anger to customers. It appears that people in Israel perceive
that "the customer is always right", inasmuch as expressing anger is a form of telling
someone they are wrong. The anger suppression norms of employees toward customers
may help explain the high burnout rate of service employees in Israel (Rafaeli, 2004), and
is consistent with high burnout rates for service employees elsewhere (Deery, Iverson, &
Walsh, 2002; Dormann, Zapf , & Isic, 2002; Grandey et al., 2004). Israeli customer
service representatives are shown here to be targets of customer anger but to be unable to
show their own anger, and this combination is likely to create high stress and burnout
(Grandey et al., 2004).
This gap between norms governing customer behavior and norms governing the
behavior of service reps joins emerging criticism regarding blind global adoption of
service management practices (Strudy, 2000). The problem may be particularly acute in
Israel, where people expect relative freedom of emotional expression (Shamir and
Melnik, 2002). Nevertheless our findings nicely illustrate anger suppression norms as
elements of a customer service culture. We describe this role of anger suppression in
Israel, and report it here in a special issue dedicated to understanding unique HR issues in
Israel. It seems that Israel has absorbed the competitive conditions characterizing the
global – in the words of Thomas Friedman, the "flat" – economy (Friedman, 2005) – and
embraced customer service norms regarding the expression of anger.
References
Allan, S., & Gilbert, P. (2002). Anger and anger expression in relation to perceptions of
social rank, entrapment, and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32, 551-565.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The
influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.
Human Relations, 48, 97-125.
Astley, J. A., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power:
A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104-113.
Averill, J. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in
organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bitner, M., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing
favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71-84.
Bongard, S., & al'Absi, M. (2003). Domain-specific anger expression assessment and
blood pressure during rest and acute stress. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 1381-1402.
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence
in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518-539.
Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status
conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological
Science, 19(3), 268-275.
Brief, A., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Brotheridge, C., & Grandey, A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two
perspectives of "people work". Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.
Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the
dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1),
57-67.
Buss, E. K., & Kiel, J. E. (2004). Comparison of sadness, anger, and fear facial
expressions when toddlers look at their mothers. Child Development, 75(6), 1761
– 1773.
Cote, S. and D. S. Moskowitz (2002). How are moods instigated at work? The influence
of relational status on mood. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel
(Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 111-134). Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centers:
Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. The Journal of
Management Studies, 39(4), 471-495.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional
display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 284-294.
Dormann, C., Zapf , D., & Isic, A. (2002). Emotional requirements at work and their
consequences for call-center jobs. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie, 46(4), 201-215.
Ekman, P. (1972). Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In
J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384-392.
Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1979). Facial expressions of emotion. Annual Review of
Psychology, 30, 527-554.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration.
Academy of Management Annals, 1, 371-457.
Fisk, G., & Grandey, A. (2003). Service with a scowl: Can social accounts mitigate
customers' reactions? Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle,
WA.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes
between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 147-162.
French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),
Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research.
Frenkel, M. (2008). Reprogramming femininity? The construction of gender identities in
the Israeli high-tech industry between global and local gender orders. Gender,
Work and Organization, 15(4), 352-374.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A short history of the 21st century. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural differences in facial expressions in a social situation: An
experimental test of the concept of display rules. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of California, San Francisco.
Fuller, L., & Smith, V. (1996). Consumers' reports: Management by customers in a
changing economy. In C. L. Macdonald & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Working in the
service society (pp. 29-49). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Geddes, D., & Callister, R.R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): A dual threshold model of
anger in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 721-46.
Gibson, D. E. (1997). The struggle for reason: The sociology of emotions in
organizations. Social perspectives on emotion, 4, 211-256.
Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. J. (2002). Grinning, frowning, and emotionless: Agent
perceptions of power and their effect on felt and displayed emotions in influence
attempts. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Managing
emotions in the workplace (pp. 184-211). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Glomb, T. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with
data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1),
20-36.
Glomb, T., & Hulin, C. (1997). Anger and gender effects in observed supervisor-
subordinate dyadic interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 72, 281-307.
Grandey, A., & Brauburger, A. (2002). The emotion regulation behind the customer
service smile. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski & R. Kanfer. (Eds.), Emotions in the
workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational
behavior (pp. 260-294). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grandey, A., Dickter, D., & Sin, H.-P. (2004). The customer is not always right:
Customer verbal aggression toward service employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 397-418.
Grandey, A., Tam, A., & Brauburger, A. (2002). Affective states and traits of young
workers: A diary study. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 31-55.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must "service with a smile" be
stressful? The moderating role of personal control for U.S. and French employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 893-904.
Gross, J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35-59.
Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer
behavior. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 144-161.
Hecht, M. A., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effects of
power and gender on amount and type of smiling. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1332-1342.
Hess, U., Blairy, S., & Kleck, R. E. (2000). The influence of facial emotion displays,
gender, and ethnicity on judgments of dominance and affiliation. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 265_283.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw Hill.
House, R., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).
Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Kupperbusch, C., Matsumoto, D., Kooken, K., Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Wilson-Cohn,
C., Yrizarry, N. (1999). Cultural influences on nonverbal expressions of emotion.
In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman & E. J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of
nonverbal behavior (pp. 17-44). New York: Cambridge.
LaFrance, M., & Hecht, M. A. (1999). Option or obligation to smile: The effects of
power and gender on facial expression. In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman & E. J.
Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 45-70). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear
models. Biometrika, 73, 13-22.
Lively, K. J., & Powell, B. (2006). Emotional expression at work and at home: Domain,
status or individual characteristics?" Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 17-38.
Margalit, B. A., & Mauger, P. A. (1984). Cross-cultural demonstration of orthogonality
of assertiveness and aggressiveness - Comparison between Israel and the United
States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1414-1421.
Marsh, A. A., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Why do fear and anger look the
way they do? Form and social function in facial expressions. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 73-86.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic
impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 429-469.
Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display
rule attitudes, and self reported emotional expression in an American sample.
Motivation and emotion, 17(2).
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences
around the world. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 55-74.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Development and validation of
a measure of display rule knowledge: The display rule assessment inventory. Emotion,
5(1), 23-40.
Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). The
contribution of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display
rules. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 1(2), 147-165.
Mattila, A., Grandey, A., & Fisk, G. (2003). The interplay of gender and affective tone in service
encounter satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 136-143.
Mayseless, O., & Salomon, G. (2003). Dialectic contradictions in the experiences of Israeli
Jewish adolescents: Efficacy and stress, closeness and friction, and conformity and non-
compliance. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and Education (Vol. 3, pp.
149-171). Greenwich, CT: nformation Age Publishing.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: Not time for "nice'? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1),
7-18.
Pfeffer. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018-1027.
Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of the supermarket
cashier. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 245-273.
Rafaeli, A. (1993). Dress and behavior of customer contact employees: A framework for
analysis. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 2, 175-211.
Rafaeli, A. (2004). Call center industry: operations and human resource management. Technion -
Israel Institute of Technology. Technical Report.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of
Management Review, 12(1), 23-37.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 11, 1-42.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. (1990). Busy stores and demanding customers: How do they affect the
display of positive emotion? Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 623-637.
Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior
and status in task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1189-1212.
Roniger, L. and M. Feige (1993). The Freier culture and the Israeli identity. Alpayim (2000) (in
Hebrew) 7: 118-136.
Saarni, C. (1979). Childrens' understanding of display rules for expressive behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 424-429.
Saarni, C., & Von Salisch, M. (1993). The socialization of emotional dissemblance. In C. Saarni
(Ed.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 106-125). New York: Guilford Press.
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.
Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shamir, B. (1980). Between service and servility: Role conflict in subordinate service roles.
Human Relations, 33(10), 741-756.
Shamir, B., & Melnik, Y. (2002). Boundary permeability as a cultural dimension: A study of
cross cultural working relations between American and Israelis in high-tech
organizations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2(2), 219-238.
Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a
shared understanding in multicultural teams. In E. A. M. Mannix, M. Neale & Y. Chen
(Eds.), Research in managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. Oxford:
Elsevier Science Press.
Spratlen, L. P. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university
workplace. Violence and Victims, 10, 285-297.
Strudy, A. (2000). Training in service – Importing and imparting customer service culture as an
interactive process. Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(6), 1082-1103.
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction
judgements across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 482-493.
Tidd, K. L., & Lockard, J. S. (1978). Monetary significance of the affiliative smile: A case for
reciprocal altruism. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 344-346.
Tiedens, L. Z. (2000). Powerful emotions: The vicious cycle of social status positions and
emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the
workplace: Research, theory and practice. (pp. 71-81). Westport, CT: Quorum.
Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of
negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 80(1), 86-94.
Tiedens, L. Z., Ellsworth, P., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Stereotypes about sentiments and status:
Emotional expectations for high- and low-status group members. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 560-574.
Trompenaars, F., & Hanmpden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill
Tschan, F., Rochat, S., & Zapf, D. (2005). It's not only clients: Studying emotion work with
clients and co-workers with an event sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78, 1-27.
Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations - Resource dependence,
efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471-481.
Underwood, M. K. (1997). Peer social status and children's understanding of the expression and
control of positive and negative emotions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 610-634.
Van Maanen, J. (1992). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. L.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture. London:
Sage.
Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational
culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103.
von Salisch, M., & Vogelgesang, J. (2005). Anger regulation among friends: Assessment and
development from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 22(6), 837-855.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.
D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology
(2 ed., Vol. 3, pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Table 1: Demographic attributes of research sample Item no
Attribute
1. Held paid job during last year or currently holds paid job 78.8% 2. Ever held or currently holds a service job 65.7% 3. Ever held or currently holds managerial position 52.8%
Male
47.2% (51)
4. Gender Percentage (N)
Female 52.8% (57)
5. Age Mean (SD)
24.84 (2.54)
Freshman 0% Sophomore 2.8% Junior 49.1% Senior 38.7% Grad MA 5.7%
6. Education
Grad Ph.D. 3.8% Israeli 81.6% Former USSR 16.8%
7. Race/ Ethnicity
Other 1.6%
Percent lived outside Israel 38.9% (42)
8. Ever lived outside of Israel
Number of months (for those who did)
77.92
Table 2: Definitions of target persons and emotions
Target
Definition
Manager A person with whom you interact regularly at your place of
employment and who is responsible for supervising or evaluating your
work.
Colleague A person with whom you interact regularly and who is similar to you in
status.
Subordinate Someone with whom you interact regularly at work and whose work
you are responsible for supervising.
Customer A person with whom you might interact if you worked as a customer
service representative; for example, a customer in a cell phone
company or a retail store.
Customer service
representative
An employee with whom you interact when you need
services – such as a cell phone assistant, or sales – such as a retail clerk
Emotion
Definition
Anger A feeling of displeasure caused by injury, mistreatment, opposition and
usually manifesting itself in a desire to fight back the cause of the
displeasure.
Fear A feeling of anxiety and agitation caused by the presence or nearness
of danger, evil or pain.
Table 3: Percent of people who indicated emotion suppression toward different target persons Target person
Anger Fear
Customer 95.37 (103)
99.07 (106)
CSR 30.56 (33)
95.24 (100)
Manager 82.41 (89)
99.07 (106)
Subordinate 42.59 (46)
98.10 (103)
Coworker 39.81 (43)
87.85 (94)
Numbers in parentheses are actual frequencies.
Table 4: Score statistics For type 3 GEE analysis of emotion expression toward different target persons
Source DF Chi-Square
Subj. is working 1 .11
Subj. is/was service employee 1 .47
Subj. is/ was supervisor 1 4.95*
Age 1 .37
Sex 1 1.53
Emotion 3 5.01*
Target person 4 23.79***
Emotion X Target person 12 10.13* *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.0001
Table 5: Anger versus fear: Least square means analysis of differences in emotion suppression toward different target persons. Customer CSR Manager Subordinate Coworker 5.17 (2.17)
48.85*** (51.67)
23.07** (10.15)
73.74*** (33.06)
11.57*** (45.94)
**p<.01 ***p<.0001 Values are odds ratios. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that suppression is equally likely with both anger and fear. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that suppression is more likely with fear; an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that suppression is more likely with anger. Significance was examined by chi-square test. Values in parentheses are chi-square values with 1 df.
Table 6: Least square means analysis of differences in emotion suppression toward different target persons.
1 2 3 4 1. Customer . 2. CSR .02***
(67.20) .
3. Manager .22** (9.07)
11.32*** (60.42)
.
4. Subordinate .03*** (49.61)
1.71* (4.62)
.15*** (37.54)
.
Ang
er
5. Coworker .03*** (56.59)
1.52+ (2.79)
.13*** (45.75)
.89 (0.31)
1. Customer . 2. CSR .19
(2.26) .
3. Manager 1.0 (0.0)
5.34 (2.30)
.
4. Subordinate .48 (.34)
2.58 (1.70)
.48 (.34)
.
Fear
5. Coworker .07** (7.72)
.36+ (3.63)
.07* (6.48)
.14** (7.28)
+p<.1 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.0001 Values are odds ratios. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that emotion suppression is equally likely with both row and column targets. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that emotion suppression is more likely with the row target. An odds ratio less than 1 indicates that emotion suppression is more likely with the column target. Significance was examined by chi-square test. Values in parentheses are chi-square values with 1 df.