Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jan 30:1–12. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04319-4

Why and when surface acting interferes with family functioning: The role of psychological detachment and family-supportive supervisor behaviors

Yuanbo Gu 1, Ruimei Wang 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9885067  PMID: 36742064

Abstract

Emotional labor is a well-documented work stressor that may have important implications for preschool teachers. Integrating conservation of resources theory and the stressors-detachment model, this study seeks to develop a moderated mediation model in which two forms of surface acting (i.e., faked positive emotions and suppressed negative emotions) would be indirectly associated with poor family functioning via psychological detachment, and the indirect association would be moderated by family-supportive supervisor behaviors. This study was investigated among 411 preschool teachers in Chinese society. Results revealed that both faked positive emotions and suppressed negative emotions led to impaired family functioning, and lack of psychological detachment mediated the detrimental effects. The moderated mediation analyses further showed that the mediated path became weaker for preschool teachers received more family-supportive supervisor behaviors. These findings deepen our practical and theoretical understanding of why and when surface acting impacts preschool teachers’ family lives.

Keywords: Preschool teachers, Surface acting, Psychological detachment, Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, Family functioning

In modern times, as the speedup of society transformation and the increasing dominance of service-driven economy, emotional labor has become an indispensable part in contemporary working life (Grandey & Melloy, 2017; Wiese et al., 2017). Hochschild (1983) seminally pointed out emotional labor as the process during which service providers create a specific facial and bodily display during interpersonal transactions. The core of teaching work involves dealing with interactions with parents, colleagues, and students (Philipp & Schüpbach, 2010; Yin & Lee, 2012). Teachers often manipulate two typical acting strategies (i.e., deep acting and surface acting) to manage their expressions and feelings when working (Lee et al., 2016; Yin, 2016; Wang et al., 2019). Deep acting, in the form of making sincere efforts to express appropriate emotions (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2000; Yin, 2016), can generate resource gains such as personal achievement, positive social feedback, and felt authenticity (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Côté, 2005). In contrast, surface acting (hereafter SA) involves regulating merely outwardly emotional expressions without changing internal emotional experience, and it tends to show more harmful influences that merit attention (Krannitz et al., 2015; Wang & Groth, 2014).

In preschool education context, SA can be described as a self-controlling process in which preschool teachers fake external expression or suppress inner feelings to follow the standards for the expression of emotion. Preschool teachers need to constantly regulate their anger, frustration, or disappointment and go on teaching warmly, politely, and friendly under all circumstances. In this process, preschool teachers are expected to suppress “inappropriate” and fake “appropriate” ones to achieve the teacher’s overall goals (e.g., positive teacher–student relationships, children’s development). Employees often engage in SA by suppressing negative emotions and faking positive ones (Glomb & Tews, 2004; Wang & Groth, 2014). However, most studies on the relation between SA and employees’ family lives used rather general measures of SA and did not differentiate suppressed negative emotions and faked positive ones. Thus, this study examines both suppressed negative emotions (hereafter SNE) and faked positive emotions (hereafter FPE) simultaneously.

Although a handful of studies have collected some evidence that SA adversely influences employees’ family lives such as work–family conflict (Cheung & Tang, 2009; Gu et al., 2020; Montgomery et al., 2005), it remains unclear whether these results on this topic could be generalized to early childhood education. Work–family literature tends to be closely associated with gender roles and cultural beliefs (Cheung & Halpern, 2010; Lu et al., 2009). “Modern” norms, interacted with traditional role expectation in gender roles have become an enormous challenge for Chinese women (Ling & Poweli, 2001; Siu et al., 2005). Because preschool education is a female-dominated occupation practiced under emotionally demanding job conditions, examining the linkage between SA and employees’ family lives in the early childhood education is worthy for its personal and professional implications.

Despite several findings of the association between SA and employees’ family lives, little research has investigated its underlying mediating and moderating mechanisms around the relationship. In this study, we develop a synthetic moderated mediation model, in which the indirect impact of SA on employees’ family lives via psychological detachment is conditional on family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Psychological detachment (hereafter detachment) is of interest because sufficient detachment promotes employees’ recovery from occupational stress and helps them to replenish their resources (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). On the contrary, insufficient detachment prolongs or reactivates psychophysiological activation during off-job time, and thereby hinders recovery (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Previous studies have referred to low detachment as an underlying psychological mechanism in the relation between the exposure to job stressors and a variety of well-being outcomes (DeArmond et al., 2014; Hahn et al., 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2014). The current study argues that detachment represents a mediating mechanism that can help answer the question of how and why SA is related to the quality of employees’ family lives.

Family-supportive supervisor behaviors (hereafter FSSB), as a specific form of social support, have received the growing attention in work–family relationship research. FSSB has been defined as a multi-dimensional superordinate construct consisting of instrumental support, emotional support, role modeling, and constructive work–family management, all of which allow employees to balance work and life effectively (Hammer et al., 2013). Because family-supportive supervisors can best understand an employee’s desire to maintain work–family balance (Kossek et al., 2011), we argue that FSSB is a resource particularly relevant in improving the quality of employees’ family lives. The current study proposes that FSSB may represent a moderating mechanism that can help answer for whom and when SA is associated with employees’ family lives. In other words, we predicted that FSSB may function as a moderator in the linkage between SA and employees’ family lives even after accounting for the potential role of detachment. FSSB, as a malleable boundary spanning resource (e.g., Voydanoff, 2004) provided by a supervisor, has been shown to have important intervention implications (Kossek et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2014).

In sum, the present study fills several specific gaps surrounding early childhood education literature: First, to date, research on emotion labor in educational settings mainly focuses on primary and secondary school teachers, leaving preschool teachers largely underexplored. It can be asserted that the preschool teachers have closer interactions with students than the teachers who teach in primary and secondary school. Because of this, the emotional labor performed by the preschool teachers may differ from others. Thus, it is believed that the current study will cater to the need for such a research in the literature. Second, although research has demonstrated the importance of emotional labor for a range of organizational and well-being outcomes, the implications of emotional labor for employees’ family lives remain largely understudied. In addition, little research has been devoted to illuminate the potential mechanisms that explain work–family relationships. The present study contributes to the existing literature by exploring the mediating and moderating mechanisms around the relationship between SA and employees’ family lives. The current study provides initial evidence for the mediating role of low detachment as well as the moderating role of FSSB in the SA–family functioning relationship among preschool teachers.

Finally, the majority of the operationalization of SA has not yet distinguished concrete emotions (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). Both suppressed and faked emotions are often viewed as one strategy (i.e., SA), even if they have different effects (e.g., Wang & Groth, 2014). The present study helps address this by comparing the relationships of both SNE and FPE with preschool teachers’ family functioning. By doing this, we identify specific methods for organization- and employee-focused interventions.

Driving it home: surface acting affects family functioning through resource drain

Until now, research has investigated the important effects of SA on employees’ family lives, often captured via the work–family conflict dimension of work–family interface (e.g., Gu & Wang, 2021; Montgomery et al., 2005; Wagner et al., 2014). The current study selected family functioning as a holistic, general indicator to assess the quality of employees’ family lives. Family functioning has been defined as a multidimensional construct consisting of behavior control, communication, roles, affective involvement and responsiveness, and problem solving (Epstein et al., 1983), all of which allow us to better evaluate the quality of employees’ family lives (Carlson et al., 2009; Rupert et al., 2013).

While there is some evidence indicating that SA has a detrimental impact on employees’ family lives, less is known about how these effects can occur. The Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) can be used to elaborate the association between SA and employees’ family lives. The COR theory argues that individuals are motivated to defend or conserve various resources (i.e., objects, energies, conditions, or personal characteristics) they value (Hobfoll, 2001). The theory goes that the actual (or threatened) loss of valued resources results in stress (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). In line with COR theory, successful family functioning requires the availability of resources (i.e., affect, energy, time). However, engaging in SA by suppressing negative and faking positive emotions involved in constantly regulating one’s genuinely felt and displayed emotions, which requires a great investment of affective and energetic resources (Cheung & Tang, 2009; Grandey & Melloy, 2017; Yagil & Medler-Liraz, 2017). Since individuals’ resource pool is not infinite, it is harder for employees to devote additional resources to fulfill family responsibilities (Hobfoll, 2001; Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012).

  • Hypothesis 1a. FPE will have an adverse influence on family functioning.

  • Hypothesis 1b. SNE will have an adverse influence on family functioning.

The mediating role of psychological detachment

Detachment, which Etzion et al. (1998) introduced the term into stress and respite research, refers to “the individual’s sense of being away from the work situation” (p. 579). Thus, detachment implies psychological rather than pure physical distance from one’s work. More precisely, detachment is a prototypical recovery experience that implies not only being disengaged from job-related activities such as answering work-related calls or scanning work-related materials, but also from job-related thoughts, such as ruminating about work-related problems (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Detachment theoretically and conceptually overlaps with other constructs that describe attachment, such as separation and loss (e.g., Ramkissoon, 2022a, b), place affect and confinement (Ramkissoon, 2021; Ramkissoon, 2020), social bonds (Ramkissoon, 2022a, b), and place/workplace attachment (Ramkissoon & Mavondo, 2015). Meyer and Allen (1991) described attachment as an “employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (p. 67). Ramkissoon et al. (2013) further defined place attachment as the intensity of the human-place bond that can be operated through place dependence, place identity, place affect and place social bonding (Ramkissoon & Mavondo, 2015). Ramkissoon’s series of studies suggests that attachment has important intervention implications during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Ramkissoon, 2021, 2022a, b). However, detachment is distinct from attachment in one particular way: Whereas detachment represents a specific cognitive–emotional state (e.g., the avoidance of work-related thoughts and emotions; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015) on off-work hours, the latter represents the mental (cognitive, attitudinal and/or emotional) connection with work/place (Ramkissoon, 2021; Ramkissoon & Mavondo, 2015).

Low detachment indicates that individuals cannot detach themselves from job-related affairs, ruminations, worries or thoughts during nonwork time (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Within the stressors-detachment (S-D) model (Sonnentag, 2010), detachment is described as a mediator by which job stressors translate into a battery of strain reactions, such as fatigue, health complaints, and exhaustion (Gluschkoff et al., 2017; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Poor family functioning can be seen as a specific strain reaction, particularly caused by job-related stressors such as SA, and thus, we propose that low detachment will function as a powerful mechanism that can explain why SA translates into poor family functioning.

The S-D model first assumes that stressful work experiences prevent detachment, because these negative experiences lead to elevated load reactions that can elicit sustained activation after work (Demsky et al., 2014). This sustained activation will evoke the recall of negative work experiences, thereby inhibiting detachment during nonwork time (Haun et al., 2018; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Accordingly, we argue that SA will impede detachment mainly because engaging in SA may result in higher levels of affective and cognitive reactions such as negative affect, anxiety, and exhaustion (Krannitz et al., 2015). In addition, emotional dissonance resulting from SA has demonstrated to be a robust predictor of low detachment (Sonnentag et al., 2010).

  • Hypothesis 2a. FPE will be negatively related to detachment.

  • Hypothesis2b. SNE will be negatively related to detachment.

The S-D model further suggests that low detachment may result in strain symptoms and chronic health problems (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Several studies so far also have demonstrated a deleterious impact of low detachment on employees’ family lives such as work–family conflict (e.g., Demsky et al., 2014; Žiedelis et al., 2022). The effort-recovery model (E-R; Meijman & Mulder, 1998) can be used to explain the important implications of low detachment. The E-R model proposes that normal load reactions (e.g., acute fatigue) that are associated inevitably with effort expenditure at work can develop into more chronic load reactions (e.g., prolonged fatigue) in situations of sustained exposure to job stressors and insufficient recovery opportunities (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). Recovery refers to a process that allows individuals’ load reactions return to the baseline when they are able to adopt some recovery strategies (e.g., detachment) outside of work time (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). From this theoretical perspective, poor family functioning involved in the process whereby ones’ family lives are influenced by manifested load reactions that have built up in the workplace. Low detachment may be particularly detrimental, because it continuously increases the taxation of psycho-physiological systems (e.g., cardiovascular systems) during off-job time (Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). In the long run, temporarily elevated strain levels may accumulate and result in more negative spillover, which would eventually lead to an impairment of family functioning.

  • Hypothesis 3: Lack of detachment has a deleterious impact on family functioning.

After demonstrating that SA impedes detachment and that low detachment in turn leads to an impairment of family functioning, this study further starts exploring the putative mediating role of low detachment. The S-D model hypothesizes that low detachment serves as a link between work stressors and strain reactions, and research has started to accumulate in support of this hypothesis (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Related to the current study, a preliminary study with multisource data suggests that low detachment mediates the association between a specific work stressor, namely workplace aggression, and two reports (i.e., self and other) of work–family conflict (Demsky et al., 2014). Synthesizing consideration of the above exposition, we proposed that the association between SA (i.e., SNE and FPE) and family functioning will be mediated by low detachment.

  • Hypothesis 4a. The linkage between FPE and poor family functioning will be mediated by lack of detachment.

  • Hypothesis 4b. The linkage between SNE and poor family functioning will be mediated by lack of detachment.

The moderating role of family-supportive supervisor behaviors

Until now, no study has empirical examined whether individuals’ perception of FSSB moderates between-person processes linking SA to low detachment and subsequent poor family functioning. Within the realm of COR theory, FSSB has been identified as a crucial resource in improving the quality of employees’ family lives (Selvarajan et al., 2016). According to COR theory, frequently engaging in SA depletes resources while family-supportive supervisors offer employees with resources (e.g., instrumental or emotional support) that are more likely to replenish this resource depletion.

Sonnentag and Fritz (2015) suggested that employee’s personal and job resources influencing secondary appraisals of work stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) such as self-efficacy and social support may moderate the impact of work stressors on detachment. Accordingly, FSSB—as evaluated during secondary appraisal—was postulated as a work-related resource for coping with work stress, which should consequently reduce the stress experienced. Empirical evidence has suggested that employees who receive high levels of FSSB can deal effectively with stressful situations and use other resources more effectively (Kossek et al., 2011; Selvarajan et al., 2016). Accordingly, when a supervisor provides a family-friendly environment in which employees are encouraged to devote time and energy to family, the negative spillover of SA at work would drop drastically. Thus, we hypothesize that FSSB will serve as a resource-replenishing boundary resource that can overcome the detrimental effects of SA on detachment and subsequently family functioning.

  • Hypothesis 5a: The impact of FPE on detachment will become weaker for employees who receive more FSSB.

  • Hypothesis 5b: The impact of SNE on detachment will become weaker for employees who receive more FSSB.

  • Hypothesis 6a: The indirect impact of FPE on WFC via detachment will become weaker for employees who receive more FSSB.

  • Hypothesis 6b: The indirect impact of SNE on WFC via detachment will become weaker for employees who receive more FSSB.

Overall, this study examined the impacts of SA on family functioning in an integrated moderated mediation model, which posits detachment as a mediator between SA and family functioning and FSSB as a moderator to the mediation effects (see Fig. 1). This model can simultaneously address mediation and moderation underlying the relationship between SA and family functioning.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Hypothesized model

Method

Participants

Paper-and-pencil questionnaires were distributed to preschool teachers from 16 preschools located in a province located in central part of China. We first contacted the kindergarten leader of these preschools to explain the objectives and procedures of the study. The kindergarten leader recruited their teachers to participate in this survey on a voluntary basis, and 473 preschool teachers returned questionnaires. A total of 411 valid data were finally obtained (effective rate of 86.9%). Among them, 10 (2.4%) participants were men, 398 (96.8%) were women, and 3 participants were with unidentified sex. Teachers represented a wide range of job tenure with the majority being 0–5 years or 11+ years (44.3% and 30.9%, respectively). Only 24.8% had 6–10 years of tenure. In terms of marital status, 144 (35.0%) were single, 262 (63.7%) were married, whereas 5 teachers did not report their marital status. As for children, 187 (45.5%) had no children at home, 217 (52.8%) had children of any age at home, whereas 7 teachers did not provide children information.

Measures

Surface acting

SA at work was measured with the Discrete Emotions Emotional Labor Scale (Glomb & Tews, 2004). Participants were asked how often they keep experienced emotions (e.g., anxiety) to themselves (suppression) and how often they express emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) while not really feeling them (faking). The rating scale ranged from 1 (never expressing/feeling this emotion) to 5 (many times a day).

Psychological detachment

Detachment was measured using the four-item Detachment Scale (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). A sample item is “During nonwork time, I forgot about work”. The rating scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Family-supportive supervisor behaviors

FSSB was measured with four items developed by Hammer et al. (2013). A sample item is “Your supervisor demonstrates effective behaviors in how to juggle work and non-work issues.” The rating scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Family functioning

The family functioning was measured using the 12-item General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD-GF; Epstein et al., 1983). The FAD is a multidimensional instrument assessing six distinct domains of family functioning such as problem solving and behavioral control. The 12-item FAD-GF provides a multifactorial, global measure of family functioning by sampling each of these distinct facets of functioning. A sample item is “We confide in each other”. Respondents responded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Control variables

Control variables included gender (0 = male; 1 = female), job tenure (1 = 0–5 years; 2 = 6–10 years; 3 = 11+ years), marital status (0 = single; 1 = married) and children at home.

Results

Preliminary analyses

To test if the multi-item measures represent different constructs, we compared the fit of the 5-factor measurement model (FPE, SNE, detachment, FSSB and family functioning) with several alternative nested models by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The 5-factor model fit the data better (χ2/df (999.312/517) = 1.933; CFI = .924; SRMR = .044; RMSEA = .048) than all the alternative models.

Table 1 presents the descriptive and bivariate correlations of study variables. In line with our expectations, both FPE (r = −.14, p < .01) and SNE (r = −.33, p < .01) were negatively correlated with family functioning. In addition, both FPE (r = −.17, p < .01) and SNE (r = −.28, p < .01) were negatively correlated with detachment. Detachment in turn was positively correlated with family functioning (r = .34, p < .01).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (N = 411)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender
2. Job tenure .01
3. Marital status .02 .66**
4. Children at home −.05 .72** .80**
5. Faked positive emotions −.01 .21** .16** .14** (.86)
6. Suppressed negative emotions −.05 −.02 .01 −.03 .32** (.90)
7. Detachment −.04 −.04 −.01 .05 −.17** −.28** (.88)
8. FSSB .00 −.04 −.03 −.06 −.08 −.18** .40** (.80)
9. Family functioning −.01 −.09 −.04 −.04 −.14** −.33** .34** .27** (.89)
M – – – – 2.55 2.48 3.24 3.34 3.25
SD – – – – .74 .71 .92 .80 .67
Open in a new tab

Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) are on the diagonal in parentheses

* p < .05. ** p < .01

Hypothesis testing

Main effects results

As shown in Tables 2 and 3, both FPE (β = −.12, p < .05) and SNE (β = −.34, p < .01) were negatively related to family functioning. Further, both FPE (β = −.14, p < .01) and SNE (β = −.21, p < .01) were significantly negatively related to detachment. In addition, after controlling for the impact of demographics and SA (FPE/SNE), detachment was still positively associated with family functioning (see Table 2). These results provided support for Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining Detachment as Mediator of the Relationship Between SA and Family Functioning

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β R/ R2/ΔR2 β R/ R2/ΔR2 β R/ R2/ΔR2
Step 1: Control variables
  Gender −.01 .09/.01/.01 −.01 .15/.02/.01* .00 .35/.12/.10**
  Job tenure −.11 −.09 −.06
  Marital status −.01 −.00 .03
  Children at home .05 .04 −.02
Step 2: Predictor variable
  Faked positive emotions −.12* −.07
Step 3: Mediator variable
  Psychological detachment .32**
Step 1: Control variables
  Gender −.01 .09/.01/.01 −.03 .35/.12/.11** −.01 .43/.18/.06**
  Job tenure −.11 −.12 −.09
  Marital status −.01 .03 .04
  Children at home .05 .02 −.03
Step 2: Predictor variable
  Suppressed negative emotions −.34** −.27**
Step 3: Mediator variable
  Psychological detachment .26**
Open in a new tab

* p < .05. ** p < .01

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining FSSB as a Moderator of the Relationship Between SA and Detachment

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 4
β R/ R2/ΔR2 β R/ R2/ΔR2 β R/ R2/ΔR2
Step 1: Control variables
  Gender −.03 .13/.02/.02 −.03 .43/.19/.17** −.03 .45/.20/.01**
  Job tenure −.12 −.08 −.08
  Marital status −.10 −.10 −.10
  Children at home .21* .23** .22**
Step 2: Predictor variables
  Faked positive emotions −.14** −.14**
  FSSB .38** .38**
Step 3: Interaction term
  Faked positive emotions × FSSB .12*
Step 1: Control variables
  Gender −.03 .13/.02/.02 −.04 .46/.21/.19** −.04 .48/.23/.02**
  Job tenure −.12 −.11 −.11
  Marital status −.10 −.09 −.07
  Children at home .21* .21* .20*
Step 2: Predictor variables
  Suppressed negative emotions −.21** −.21**
  FSSB .36** .33**
Step 3: Interaction term
  Suppressed negative emotions × FSSB .14**
Open in a new tab

* p < .05. ** p < .01

Mediation results

As shown in Table 2, the regression weight of FPE and SNE decreased after entering detachment into the model; that means there is a mediating effect. We further tested the mediation effect by adopting Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS procedure (model 4). FPE was negatively associated with family functioning indirectly through detachment (Effect = −.0466, SE = .0177, lower level confidence interval [LLCI] = −.0843, upper level confidence interval [ULCI] = −.0138). Similar results were acquired for the indirect relationship between SNE and family functioning (Effect = −.0650, SE = .0198, LLCI = −.1068, ULCI = −.0301). Significance of the indirect impact is demonstrated because confidence intervals do not include zero. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Moderation results

To test the interaction effects, three-step procedure (Baron & Kenny, 1986) was adopted. As shown in Table 3, FSSB significantly moderates the effects of FPE (β = .12, p < .05) and SNE (β = .14, p < .01) on detachment. According to Aiken and West’s (1991) procedures, these two interactions were plotted. As seen in Figs. 2 and 3, the effects of both FPE and SNE on detachment became weaker for those who reported higher FSSB than those reported lower FSSB. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Significant interaction effect between faked positive emotions and FSSB on detachment

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Significant interaction effect between suppressed negative emotions and FSSB on detachment

Moderated mediation results

Conditional indirect effects were examined adopting Model 7 of Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS program (5000 bias-corrected bootstrapped samples and 95% confidence intervals). As shown in Table 4, the indirect impacts of both FPE and SNE on family functioning was stronger at lower (− 1 SD) level of FSSB and weaker for the subgroup who experienced higher levels (+ 1 SD) of FSSB. Tests of the index of moderated mediation showed that the confidence intervals did not include zero, meaning a significant conditional indirect impact (Hayes et al., 2017). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was supported.

Table 4.

Analysis of Conditional Indirect Effects of SA at Various Values of FSSB

Values of FSSB Conditional indirect effect SE Lower CI Upper CI
Independent variable: faked positive emotions
  - 1 SD −.0611 .0184 −.1013 −.0294
  M −.0439 .0150 −.0757 −.0167
  + 1 SD −.0094 .0170 −.0450 .0226
  Index of moderated mediation .0345 .0137 .0108 .0649
Independent variable: suppressed negative emotions
  - 1 SD −.0734 .0217 −.1197 −.0360
  M −.0549 .0172 −.0916 −.0249
  + 1 SD −.0179 .0155 −.0506 .0106
  Index of moderated mediation .0370 .0141 .0118 .0672
Open in a new tab

Bootstrap sample size = 5000. CI = confidence interval

Alternative models

Given that FSSB could moderate the indirect effect of surface acting on family functioning via detachment at the second stage of this indirect effect (i.e., FSSB may moderate the link between detachment and family functioning). We tested this model using Model 14 of Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro and found that the indirect effects of FPE and SNE on family functioning via detachment were not conditional on FSSB at the second stage of this indirect effect. For each of the alternative models, the confidence intervals of the index of moderated mediation contained zero (the indirect impact of FPE on family functioning: Effect: .0123, SE .0096, LLCI -.0031, ULCI .0340; the indirect impact of SNE on family functioning: Effect: .0083, SE .0158, LLCI -.0197, ULCI .0439).

Based on the interconnectedness of work and family as well as the data’s cross-sectional nature, it is possible that reverse relationship exists (Ramkissoon & Mavondo, 2015; Ramkissoon et al., 2013). Thus, we also investigated the indirect and conditional indirect effects with family functioning as the antecedent variable and surface acting as the consequence variable. The results showed that the indirect effect from family functioning to FPE via detachment was different from zero (Effect = −.0472, SE = .0217, LLCI = −.0927, ULCI = −.0081). Similar results were acquired for the indirect relationship between family functioning and SNE (Effect = −.0608, SE = .0239, LLCI = −.1108, ULCI = −.0159). In other words, the individuals’ SA influences family functioning through detachment, but, in turn, poor family functioning might also lead to an increased use of SA through detachment. However, the present data cannot provide further support for the moderate effect of FSSB on the indirect relationship among family functioning, detachment, and SA. Accordingly, the alternative models cannot be fully explained, and the hypothesized model (see Fig. 1) fits the data better.

Discussion

The present study used the moderated mediation analyses to explain why and when SA relates to family functioning among preschool teachers. Results indicated that SA is detrimental to family functioning via detachment. Preschool teachers who fake positive and suppress negative emotions in the workplace are likely to experience lower detachment during nonwork time, which in turn, loops back to impair family functioning. Furthermore, we found that FSSB actually works as a buffer that mitigates the mediation process in the SA to detachment path. The indirect impact of SA on family functioning through detachment was weaker or non-significant for preschool teachers reporting high levels of FSSB. These findings deepen our understanding of when and why SA at work translates their detrimental effects into the nonwork domain.

Theoretical implications

The present study is the first to directly link emotional labor with family functioning in the preschool education. In line with our predictions, results supported the proposition that surface acting might consume employees’ precious resources (e.g., energy and emotional resources), leaving them with fewer resources to carry out family duties and thus experience poor family functioning. Our examination of two aspects of SA (i.e., FPE and SNE) that are associated with poor family functioning is useful for testing the strength and robustness of SA–family relationship. Furthermore, we apply the S-D model (Sonnentag, 2010) to emotional labor, which explains the associations of SA with family functioning. We target lack of detachment as a mediator in explaining why SA leads to an impairment of family functioning. In line with the S-D model, the mediating role of detachment was supported, which adds to the limited research in support of this model (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). This pattern of results extends work–family literature by integrating the recovery literature and increases our understanding of why and how SA negatively affects preschool teachers’ family lives.

As another critical aspect of the moderated mediation model, our article integrated FSSB with the S-D model by testing the moderating role of FSSB on the relationship between SA and detachment, which, to our knowledge has not been examined previously. The results suggest that FSSB as a boundary spanning resource effectively protect employees from the difficulty disengaging from work. Furthermore, by integrating different perspectives (i.e., S-D model, transactional stress theory, and COR theory), we further confirm a moderated mediation model in which the indirect impact of SA on family functioning via low detachment became weaker for employees received more FSSB. This synthesis model can simultaneously answer why (mediation) and when (moderation) SA has a deleterious influence on employees’ family lives. Our results in support of FSSB as a buffer of the indirect impact of SA on family functioning via detachment offer strong support of the extended S-D model (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015), in which dispositional and situational moderators such as social support may buffer the influence of job stressors on detachment. Remarkably, our test of the alternative models demonstrated that the moderating role of FSSB in the extended S-D model occurs in the first stage (i.e., SA to detachment path) rather than in the second stage (i.e., detachment to family functioning path). This not only further validates the effectiveness of the extended S-D model (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015), but also confirms the merit of considering moderators in the model. In addition, although our test of reverse relationships provides support for the reciprocal relationship between work and family, the moderating role of FSSB in any path was not detected. These additional analyses indicate that our model is more feasible than some alternative models, and provide a clear direction for employee- and organization-focused interventions.

Finally, the current study joined the few studies (e.g., Cheung & Tang, 2009; Gu et al., 2020) that examined the impacts of engaging in SA on nonwork domain but also extended it by testing FPE and SNE as distinct forms of surface acting. We answer repeated calls to differentiate distinct SA strategies by comparing the relationships of FPE and SNE with family functioning. We demonstrated that FPE are distinguishable from SNE. Study findings indicate that FPE explain 1% of the variance in family functioning, whereas SNE explain 11%. In addition, faked positive emotions explain 2% of the variance in detachment, whereas suppressing negative emotions explain 7%. These results support the differential salience approach that SNE tends to exhibit more detrimental effects compared with FPE. While FPE and SNE all negatively related to family functioning through detachment, SNE seems to be the most detrimental to preschool teachers’ family functioning. Thus, although past research has shown that SNE is qualitatively and conceptually different from FPE (e.g., Glomb & Tews, 2004; Wang & Groth, 2014), our study provides an initial evidence of the relative effects of FPE and SNE on nonwork outcomes.

Practical implications

Our results suggest three key ways in which the harmful effects of SA on employees’ family lives can be reduced. First, because FPE and SNE were found to be negatively associated with family functioning, it seems reasonable to develop effective emotional labor strategies. Research suggests that deep acting can guard against the detrimental effects of emotional labor (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). The key is to identify those teachers who tend to fake/suppress their emotions and which specific situations induce the emotional labor. Targeted interventions could point to training teachers to distinguish between FPE and SNE and to use more beneficial emotional labor strategies such as deep acting and promote its routine use.

Second, our results suggest that poor detachment is a critical mechanism through which preschool teachers experience poor family function when facing high SA. Thus, creating favorable conditions and positive atmosphere for preschool teachers to effectively detach from work is meaningful. Research has indicated that person-directed interventions, such as goal-setting techniques segmenting work and nonwork lives (Hahn et al., 2011), separating e-mail accounts for personal use and work (Kreiner et al., 2009), and engaging in meaningful leisure activities (e.g., yoga, tennis tournaments) outside work (Feuerhahn et al., 2014), and work-directed interventions, such as workshops about time management and relaxation, setting work breaks, and flexible work schedules, would help employees detaching from work during nonwork time.

Finally, our findings showed that SA does not always lead to poor detachment and subsequent impaired family functioning. Our findings suggest that FSSB serves as a potential mitigating factor that alleviates the indirectly detrimental effect of SA at work on employees’ family functioning. As to organization, one obvious suggestion stemming from our study is to encourage supervisors to exhibit family-supportive behaviors. To this end, it is very important for organizations and supervisors to be aware of positive roles of work–family supportive supervisors and to create a family-friendly climate as much as possible in which employees are encouraged to share family-related issues and needs. In addition, given that FSSB is a trainable skill, it is also very necessary to offer training for managers in regard to how to implement individualized flexible practice strategies (e.g., flexi-location, flexi-schedule, flexi-time) and provide constructive suggestions and creative solutions to employees’ family matters and problems (Kossek et al., 2011).

Limitations, suggestions, and conclusions

Several limitations of this study are presented despite its contributions. First, the survey was based on self-report questionnaires and thus the validity of our study might be threatened by common-method bias. Future research should gather more objectively measured data from various sources, such as coworker or supervisor ratings for SA and spouse-report measure of detachment. Second, this study was cross-sectional, signifying that causal effects among the variables cannot be drawn. Diary, longitudinal, and even (quasi) experiment study design are needed to confirm the potential causal relations between SA and family functioning. Finally, we had limited our scope to examine two forms of SA (i.e., suppressed negative emotions and faked positive emotions) only. It might be valuable to explore other components of SA such as suppressed positive and faked negative emotions (Taxer & Frenzel, 2015).

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study before participation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brotheridge C, Grandey A. Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2002;60:17–39. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1815. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brotheridge CM, Lee RT. Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2002;7:57–67. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlson DS, Grzywacz JG, Zivnuska S. Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations. 2009;62(10):1459–1486. doi: 10.1177/0018726709336500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheung FM, Halpern DF. Women at the top: Powerful leaders define success as work + family in a culture of gender. American Psychologist. 2010;65:182–193. doi: 10.1037/a0017309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheung FY-L, Tang CS-K. Quality of work life as a mediator between emotional labor and work family interference. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2009;24:245–255. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9103-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Côté S. Reconciling the feelings-as-information and hedonic contingency models of how mood influences systematic information processing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2005;35:1656–1679. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02189.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. DeArmond S, Matthews RA, Bunk J. Workload and procrastination: The roles of psychological detachment and fatigue. International Journal of Stress Management. 2014;21(2):137–161. doi: 10.1037/a0034893. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Demsky CA, Ellis AM, Fritz C. Shrugging it off: Does psychological detachment mediate the relationship between workplace aggression and work–family conflict? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2014;19:195–205. doi: 10.1037/a0035448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS. The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 1983;9:171–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1983.tb01497.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Etzion D, Eden D, Lapidot Y. Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1998;83:577–585. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feuerhahn N, Sonnentag S, Woll A. Exercise after work, psychological mediators, and affect: A day-level study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2014;23:62–79. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.709965. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Geurts SAE, Sonnentag S. Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 2006;32:482–492. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Glomb TM, Tews MJ. Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2004;64:1–23. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00038-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gluschkoff K, Elovainio M, Hintsanen M, Mullola S, Pulkki-Råback L, Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Hintsa T. Perfectionism and depressive symptoms: The effects of psychological detachment from work. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;116:186–190. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grandey AA. Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2000;5(1):95–110. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Grandey AA, Melloy RC. The state of the heart: Emotional labor as emotion regulation reviewed and revised. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2017;22:407–422. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gu Y, Wang R. Job demands and work–family conflict in preschool teachers: The buffering effects of job resources and off-job recovery experiences. Current Psychology. 2021;40:3974–3985. doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00349-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gu Y, Wang R, You X. Recovery experiences moderate the impact of work stressors on well-being: A two-wave study of preschool teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2020;48:189–202. doi: 10.1007/s10643-019-00994-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hahn VC, Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. Learning how to recover from job stress: Effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2011;16:202–216. doi: 10.1037/a0022169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hammer LB, Kossek EE, Bodner T, Crain T. Measurement development and validation of the family supportive supervisor behavior short-form (FSSB-SF) Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2013;18:285–296. doi: 10.1037/a0032612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Haun VC, Nübold A, Bauer AG. Being mindful at work and at home: Buffering effects in the stressor-detachment model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2018;91(2):385–410. doi: 10.1111/joop.12200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayes AF, Montoya AK, Rockwood NJ. The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal. 2017;25:76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist. 1989;44:513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hobfoll SE. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2001;50:337–421. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hochschild AR. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hülsheger UR, Schewe AF. On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2011;16:361–389. doi: 10.1037/a0022876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hülsheger UR, Lang JWB, Depenbrock F, Fehrmann C, Zijlstra FRH, Alberts HJEM. The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;99:1113–1128. doi: 10.1037/a0037702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kossek EE, Pichler S, Bodner T, Hammer LB. Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence general and work–family specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology. 2011;64:289–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Krannitz MA, Grandey AA, Liu S, Almeida DA. Workplace surface acting and marital partner discontent: Anxiety and exhaustion spillover mechanisms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2015;20:314–325. doi: 10.1037/a0038763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kreiner G, Hollensbe E, Sheep ML. Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal. 2009;52:704–730. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.43669916. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lazarus R, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee M, Pekrun R, Taxer JL, Schutz PA, Vogl E, Xie X. Teachers’ emotions and emotion management: Integrating emotion regulation theory with emotional labor research. Social Psychology of Education. 2016;19:843–863. doi: 10.1007/s11218-016-9359-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ling Y, Poweli GN. Work–family conflict in cotemporary China: Beyond an American-based model. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 2001;1:357–373. doi: 10.1177/147059580113006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lu JF, Siu OL, Spector PE, Shi K. Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxonomy of work-family balance in Chinese employed parents. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2009;14:182–192. doi: 10.1108/JOEPP-01-2015-0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Matthews RA, Mills MJ, Trout RC, English L. Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2014;19(2):168–181. doi: 10.1037/a0036012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Meijman TF, Mulder G. Psychological aspects of workload. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H, editors. Handbook of work and organizational psychology. Psychology Press; 1998. pp. 5–33. [Google Scholar]
  40. Meyer JP, Allen NJ. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review. 1991;1:61–89. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Montgomery AJ, Panagopolou E, Benos A. Emotional labor at work and at home among Greek health-care professionals. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 2005;19:395–408. doi: 10.1108/14777260510615413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Philipp A, Schüpbach H. Longitudinal effects of emotional labour on emotional exhaustion and dedication of teachers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2010;15:494–504. doi: 10.1037/a0021046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ramkissoon H. COVID-19 place confinement, pro-social, pro-environmental behaviors, and residents' wellbeing: A new conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:2248. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ramkissoon, H. (2021). Place affect interventions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 3864. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.726685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Ramkissoon H. Pro-sociality in times of separation and loss. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022;45:101290. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ramkissoon, H. (2022b). COVID-19 adaptive interventions: Implications for wellbeing and quality-of-life. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Ramkissoon H, Mavondo FT. The satisfaction-place attachment relationship: Potential mediators and moderators. Journal of Business Research. 2015;68(12):2593–2602. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ramkissoon H, Smith L, Weiler B. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviors: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Management. 2013;36:552–566. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rupert PA, Hartman ERT, Miller ASO. Work demands and resources, work–family conflict, and family functioning among practicing psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2013;44(5):283–289. doi: 10.1037/a0034494. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Selvarajan, T. T. (Rajan), Singh, B., & Cloninger, P. A. (2016). Role of personality and affect on the social support and work–family conflict relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 39–56. 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.004
  51. Siu OL, Spector PE, Cooper CL, Lu CQ. Work stress, self-efficacy, Chinese work values and work well-being in Hong Kong and Beijing. International Journal of Stress Management. 2005;12:274–288. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.12.3.274. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sonnentag S. Recovery from fatigue: The role of psychological detachment. In: Ackerman PL, editor. Cognitive fatigue: The current status and future for research and application. American Psychological Association; 2010. pp. 253–272. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sonnentag S, Fritz C. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2007;12:204–221. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Sonnentag S, Fritz C. Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2015;36:72–103. doi: 10.1002/job.1924. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sonnentag S, Kuttler I, Fritz C. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;76:355–365. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Taxer JL, Frenzel AC. Facets of teachers’ emotional lives: A quantitative investigation of teachers' genuine, faked, and hidden emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2015;49:78–88. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker AB. A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist. 2012;67:545–556. doi: 10.1037/a0027974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Voydanoff P. The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:398–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00028.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wagner DT, Barnes CM, Scott BA. Driving it home: How workplace emotional labor harms employee home life. Personnel Psychology. 2014;67:487–516. doi: 10.1111/peps.12044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang KL, Groth M. Buffering the negative effects of employee SA: The moderating role of employee–customer relationship strength and personalized services. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;99:341–350. doi: 10.1037/a0034428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Taxer, J. L. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of teachers’ emotional labor: A systematic review and Meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review. 10.1007/s10648-019-09475-3
  62. Wiese BS, Heidemeier H, Burk CL, Freund AM. When work takes over: Emotional labor strategies and daily ruminations about work while at home. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 2017;16:150–154. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000174. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yagil D, Medler-Liraz H. Personally committed to emotional labor: Surface acting, emotional exhaustion and performance among service employees with a strong need to belong. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2017;22:481–491. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Yin HB. Knife-like mouth and tofu-like heart: Emotion regulation by Chinese teachers in classroom teaching. Social Psychology of Education. 2016;19:1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9319-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Yin HB, Lee JCK. Be passionate, but be rational as well: Emotional rules for Chinese teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2012;28:56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.08.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Žiedelis, A., Urbanavičiūtė, I., & Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė, J. (2022). Family boundary permeability, difficulties detaching from work, and work-home conflict: What comes first during the lockdown? Current Psychology. 10.1007/s12144-022-03492-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.j.) are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES