Work and Occupations 2004 Sloan 38 72.Pp

Work http://wox.sagepub.
com/ and Occupations
The Effects of Occupational Characteristics on the Experience and Expression of Anger in the Workplace
Melissa M. Sloan Work and Occupations 2004 31: 38 DOI: 10.1177/0730888403260734 The online version of this article can be found at: http://wox.sagepub.com/content/31/1/38
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Work and Occupations can be found at: Email Alerts: http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://wox.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://wox.sagepub.com/content/31/1/38.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 2004 What is This?
Downloaded from wox.sagepub.com at Uni Babes-Bolyai on October 30, 2013
10.1177/0730888403260734 WORK Sloan / EXPERIENCING AND OCCUPATIONS ANGER / February IN THE2004 WORKPLACE
The Effects of Occupational Characteristics on the Experience and Expression of Anger in the Workplace
MELISSA M. SLOAN Vanderbilt University
ARTICLE
This article examines the relationships among extensive interaction with others on the job, occupational status, and the experience and expression of anger in the workplace using data from the 1996 General Social Survey and occupational characteristic measures from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The findings indicate that individuals who spend much of their time interacting with others at work report experiencing workplace anger more frequently than other workers. The expression of anger was found to be associated with interacting with people at work, occupational status, and relative status. Individuals who deal with people at work are likely to discuss their experienced anger with someone other than the anger target, whereas individuals working in highly esteemed occupations are more likely than lower status workers to confront the target of their anger directly. Keywords: emotion management; anger; occupational characteristics; interpersonal communication
he expression of emotion in the workplace has been addressed by many who study the sociology of emotion (e.g., Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Pierce, 1995). The bulk of this research has stressed the control of negative emotions such as anger (Hochschild, 1983; Rogers, 1995), disgust (Cahill, 1999; Smith & Kleinman, 1989), or fear (Haas, 1977). In interactions with clients, customers, and superiors in particular, workers often have to suppress or conceal any negative emotion that they may feel while instead expressing a neutral or positive emotion. Because emotion management is typically performed in the presence of others, individuals who frequently interact with people on the job are thought to spend a significant amount of time controlling their emotions. Research suggests that
Authors Note: The author would like to thank Karen Campbell and Peggy Thoits for their helpful comments and support. She is also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful reviews.
WORK AND OCCUPATIONS, Vol. 31 No. 1, February 2004 38-72 DOI: 10.1177/0730888403260734 2004 Sage Publications
38
Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE
39
such workers experience a great deal of emotion and at the same time are subject to controls on their emotional expression (Bellas, 1999; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Lively, 2002; Rogers, 1995; Smith & Kleinman, 1989). In addition, emotional experience and expression are thought to vary as a function of social status (Collins, 1990; Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Kemper, 1990; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990; Smith-Lovin, 1995; Thoits, 1989). Specifically, studies have linked high status with freer expression of negative emotions such as anger (Conway, DiFazio, & Mayman, 1999; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990; Tiendens, 2001). However, to date, the relationships among extensive interaction with others on the job, worker status, and emotional experience and expression in the workplace have not been empirically tested using data from a national probability sample. This article identifies characteristics of occupations that influence the experience, control, and expression of anger in the workplace. Of primary concern here is whether or not workers differ in their emotional experience and expression based on two characteristics of their occupation: the extent to which workers must interact with other people and the general social status associated with working the particular occupation, and the status of the person with whom the worker is angry. BACKGROUND Much of the theoretical work in the emotion management literature has focused on the control of negative emotions in general (i.e., Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Lively, 2000). Although the emotion of anger is not synonymous with negative emotion, anger is the most often cited and frequently experienced negative emotion (Averill, 1982; Clark, 1990; Gordon, 1990; Thoits, 1990). The emotion management that occurs in the workplace is often focused on the control or suppression of anger (e.g., Hall, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Rogers, 1995). Anger is thought to be one of the most powerful and potentially harmful emotions (Tavris, 1989), and its expression is largely unacceptable in social settings and, in particular, in the workplace (Stearns & Stearns, 1986). To this effect, Stearns and Stearns write about the development of a modern emotional style in the 20th century in which the expression of anger became unacceptable at home and in the workplace. They claim that Americans have gone from a relative unconcern with anger per se to an increasing insistence that anger be denoted and reproved (p. 2). The focus on the control of anger meant changes in the emotional atmosphere of the workplace. Because of such restrictions, the study of the expression of
40
WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004
anger in the workplace should illuminate any status differences in emotional expressivitywhere those with sufficient status are not strictly bound in their emotional expression (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995). Workers in the service sector are thought to be particularly restricted in their expression of negative emotions. A focus on friendly service in service sector occupations requires that many workers must go beyond the suppression of negative emotion and actually express a positive emotion (e.g., cheerfulness) that they are not truly feeling (Hochschild, 1983). Hochschild (1983) termed this process emotional labor, or controlling emotions as a requirement of ones work (i.e., for pay). Subsequently, research has shown that emotional labor exists in many service sector occupations (Hall, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Sutton, 1991; see McCammon & Griffin, 2000, for a review) as well as in other occupations that involve extensive contact with customers or clients (Lively, 2002). The emotion management process highlights the difference between emotional experience and emotional expression (Conway et al., 1999; Hochschild, 1979). An individual may experience or truly feel an emotion but not express it. On the other hand, an individual may express an emotion that is not truly felt, usually to be consistent with the norms of the particular social setting (Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Thoits, 1985, 1990). The idea that an individual may feel a certain emotion while expressing another has raised concerns about authenticity and the potential emotional distress associated with performing emotion management (Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Hochschild, 1983; Pugliesi, 1999; Pugliesi & Shook, 1997; Wharton, 1993). Emotion management is thought to be particularly harmful when an individual must engage in this process on a daily basis, as part of his or her work (Hochschild, 1983). Indeed, controlling emotions while at work has been shown to be psychologically damaging across a variety of occupations (Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Pugliesi, 1999; Pugliesi & Shook, 1997). Although workers in service sector occupations have been given particular attention, evidence of emotion management processes has been found in a wide range of occupationsfrom high steel iron workers (Haas, 1977) to fast food counter workers (Leidner, 1993) to physicians (Smith & Kleinman, 1989). Thus, the suppression of emotions such as anger occurs in many types of occupations, particularly those that involve dealing with people (Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Pugliesi & Shook, 1997; Steinberg & Figart, 1999). An important factor in determining the performance and effects of emotion management seems to be the status of the worker. The experience and expression of emotion are shaped by a persons social structural position
41
(Gordon, 1990). The risk of experiencing anger in particular is structured by an individuals social situation (Ross & Van Willigen, 1996). Negative events (such as economic hardship) occur more frequently to individuals of lower status (Denham & Bultemeier, 1993), and thus the likelihood of experiencing negative emotions such as anger is greater for lower status individuals (Conway et al., 1999; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996). Furthermore, Stets and Tsushima (2001) found that individuals whose status was lower than that of the target of their anger reported more intense and longer lasting anger than those of higher status. On the other hand, when individuals are in positions of high status relative to other members of their group, they tend to experience more positive emotions than the individuals of lower status (Lovaglia & Houser, 1996). Whereas the experience of anger is thought to vary with status, little is known about why people experience anger at work.1 Basch and Fisher (2000) conducted a study of hotel workers in Australia and found that workers reported negative events at work due to acts of management, acts of colleagues, acts of customers, lack of recognition, and lack of goal achievement. The most common reasons cited for experiencing anger at work were acts of colleagues, management, or customers. Although Basch and Fisher did not look at the status of the worker in particular, a workers status may influence the types of events that he or she experiences. For example, due to the deference shown to those of high status, a high-status worker is unlikely to be treated badly by lower status workers. In addition, because negative emotion is often directed down the status hierarchy, it is likely that lower status workers will be the target of negative emotional expression (Clark, 1990; Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Pugliesi & Shook, 1997). Lower status workers, then, may be more likely than higher status workers to experience anger due to bad treatment by others (i.e., others being inconsiderate or disrespectful) (e.g., Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Lively, 2000; Rogers, 1995). Thus, although there is little empirical research on the specific reasons that elicit anger in the workplace, it is likely that workers who differ by status also differ in terms of why and how often they experience anger at work. However, although lower status individuals may be exposed to more events that elicit negative emotion and thus experience more anger, research suggests that individuals in lower status positions express anger less than those in higher status positions (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). There are specific status patterns that guide the expression of anger (Conway et al., 1999; Lively, 2000) and there is evidence that people are conscious of these patterns of emotional expression. A series of experimental studies by Conway and colleagues shows that lower status individuals are perceived as expressing less anger than higher status individuals
42
(Conway et al., 1999). People appear to associate the expression of anger with high status. In another set of experiments, Tiendens (2001) has shown that, in the absence of relative status information, an individual who expresses anger is seen as powerful and competent. Status is thought to be interconnected with the experience and expression of anger, and individuals appear to be cognizant of this relationship. Research has also shown that the behavior of individuals follows these patterns of expression. Negative emotions such as anger tend to be directed at lower status others (Clark, 1990; Hochschild, 1979; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995; Pugliesi & Shook, 1997). As illustrated in the research on service sector workers, individuals of low statuswho are in positions where they must show deference to othersare constrained in their emotional expression (e.g., Hall, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Rogers, 1995). This is also the case with workers on the lower end of the status hierarchy in other occupations (Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995). In comparison, workers at the top of the status hierarchy enjoy more freedom in their expression (Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). In particular, Gibson and Schroeder (2002) argue that for individuals of high status, the greater the status difference between the individual and the target of anger, the more likely it is that the higher status individual will express his or her authentic feelings. Thus, when an individual of high status experiences anger at an individual of lower status, he or she is likely to express that anger. It must be noted, however, that high-status individuals do engage in emotion management processes (Bellas, 1999; Cahill, 1999; Smith & Kleinman, 1989) in certain situations. An important factor here is the strategic use of anger that is available primarily to those of higher status. Although in many cases high-status individuals must control their negative emotion (e.g., in a physician-patient interaction), there are more opportunities for higher status individuals to express and strategically use anger than there are for those of lower status (Clark, 1990; Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). Whereas lower status individuals have less control and flexibility in their work, higher status workers may manage their emotions in one aspect of their work but often have flexibility in their jobs and may express their emotions in other types of workplace interactions. For example, a physician may have to control his or her negative emotions while interacting with a patient but be able to express negative emotion or use it strategically in interactions with nurses and orderlies. For those in positions of high status, the emotion of anger can be used as a tool in social interaction with lower status others (Clark, 1990; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). Anger may be used to demonstrate power and authority or to intimidate and to elicit fear in others (Clark, 1990; Gibson & Schroeder, 2002). Experimental research has repeatedly illustrated this
43
process when high-status individuals interact with low-status individuals (Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). The greater an individuals ability to influence others (i.e., intimidate, denounce, etc.) by using anger, the more likely it is that the individual will express his or her anger. Thus, not only do higher status individuals have a greater freedom of emotional expression, they also have the ability to benefit from the strategic expression of emotion. In sum, experimental studies have shown that research participants are well aware of the status patterns in the expression of negative emotion and, in particular, anger (Conway et al., 1999; Tiendens, 2001). Furthermore, research on small groups illustrates that the behavior of individuals follows these expression patterns (Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990; Stets & Tsushima, 2001). Lower status individuals may experience more negative emotion but express it less. Thus, they spend more time and effort inhibiting their negative emotion than higher status individuals. On the other hand, higher status individuals tend to express their negative emotion directly to lower status individuals and may also use it strategically in social interactionan option not readily available to individuals of lower status. In general, lower status individuals are expected to express less anger than higher status individuals. Furthermore, in interactions between individuals of differing statuses, the individual with the higher relative status should be more likely to express anger to the lower status individual than vice versa. Thus far, I have discussed research relating to the direct expression of angerthat is, directly speaking to the target of the experienced anger. Although there are many other means of managing emotion (see Thoits, 1985, 1990), the direct expression of negative emotion has been given the most attention in the literature. However, as Lively (2000) revealed, another process that may be important for understanding the status-emotion management relationship in the workplace is a type of indirect expression. In her study of paralegals, Lively (2000) showed that paralegals of similar status turn to each other for help in performing the emotion management required in the workplace. Being unable to express anger directly to higher status attorneys, the paralegals sought the aid of coworkers for emotional support. Lively termed this process reciprocal emotion management. In addition to benefiting those who engage in this process, reciprocal emotion management also benefits higher status others by sustaining the workplace hierarchy in which lower status individuals do not directly express their anger to higher status individuals and superiors continue to express freely at subordinates (Lively, 2000). Thus, it is important to consider the indirect expression of anger to others to more fully understand anger expression and status in the workplace.
44
Whereas reciprocal emotion management is a response to anger at higher status others, it remains unclear whether workers will display anger at others of equal status. When both individuals are working in low-status occupations that require emotion management, will an individual refrain from expressing anger to an equal status target of that anger because they are both of low occupational status? Will they express anger because they are not bound by hierarchal expression rules? Or will they turn to others for support? Likewise, what should we expect when an individual of high occupational status, who may enjoy the use of anger expression, becomes angry at a coworker of equally high status? RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES In this article, I investigate the relationship between the experience and expression of anger and occupational characteristics. The questions of interest in this article are as follows: Do workers who work in jobs in which they must deal with other people experience more anger at work than other types of workers? Do workers in occupations that require emotion management express their anger less than workers in other occupations? Do high-status workers express their anger more than low-status workers? Does the workers anger expression depend on the status of the target of that anger? Which is more important in determining whether an individual will express anger the workers occupational status or the status of the anger target?
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPRESSION OF ANGER
Although individuals react to negative emotion in many ways (Thoits, 1985, 1990), the actual expression of anger is of interest herethat is, acting on ones feelings of anger by communicating to another person. The expression of emotion can serve as a claim to status (Clark, 1990). In workplace settings, where workers are limited in their freedom of emotional expression based on their status (Hochschild, 1983; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995), the expression of emotion via communication with the target of anger should be a function of a workers status (Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990; Stets & Tsushima, 2001). For instance, a lower status worker should be less likely to communicate his or her anger directly to a higher status target than vice versa. I refer to this type of anger expression as direct expression. The direct expression of anger involves communicating with the target of ones anger.
45
On the other hand, the expression of anger to another individual, that is, involving a third party in ones emotional experience, may also relate to a workers status position. Previous research has identified two processes that may be of importance in the workplace: reciprocal emotion management and the deflection of negative emotions. Workers of low status may turn to equal or lower status others for social support and help in managing anger targeted toward a higher status individual (Lively, 2000). Alternatively (or in addition), anger not expressed to a higher status individual may be redirected at a lower status individual (Clark, 1990; Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995; Pugliesi & Shook, 1997). Through interactions with other individuals, one may use the expression of anger to indicate his or her standing relative to those individuals, whether it be higher, lower, or equal (Clark, 1990).
WORKING WITH PEOPLE
First, I expect that workers in occupations that require dealing with people will experience more anger than those in other occupations because extensive interactions with others should increase the likelihood of experiencing an other-directed emotion such as anger at work. Also, greater contact with customers and clients should be associated with greater chances of being treated poorly by others (Hall, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Lively, 2002). In addition, the emotion management literature suggests that workers in service sector occupations or occupations that involve extensive client contact or people-handling skills are particularly restricted in their expression of negative emotion (Hall, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993; Lively, 2002; Steinberg & Figart, 1999). Therefore, I expect workers in such occupations to be less likely to express their anger directly than other workers due to the emotion management often required in interactions with others. On the other hand, workers who must deal with people (e.g., customers and clients) as part of their job should be more likely to engage in indirect expression (i.e., speaking to others about their anger) as a means of managing negative emotion that they may not be permitted to directly express (Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Lively, 2000).
Hypothesis 1: Workers in occupations that require dealing with other people will differ from workers in occupations requiring less people contact in their experience and expression of anger in the workplace. Hypothesis 1a: Workers in occupations that require dealing with other people will experience more work-related anger than workers in other types of occupations.
46
Hypothesis 1b: Workers in occupations that require dealing with people will be less likely than other workers to express their anger directly. Hypothesis 1c: Workers in occupations that require dealing with people will be more likely than other types of workers to express their anger indirectly.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL AND RELATIVE STATUS
Because individuals occupying lower status positions are at a greater risk for experiencing negative emotions (Denham & Bultemeier, 1993; Mirowsky & Ross, 1989; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996), I expect that workers in positions with low occupational status will experience more anger than workers in more highly esteemed occupations. I will also explore the reasons for anger, expecting that these will differ by the status of the worker as well low-status workers will be more likely than high-status workers to experience anger due to poor treatment by others (Basch & Fisher, 2000; Clark, 1990; Hochschild, 1979, 1983). Furthermore, as stated above, both modes of anger expression (direct and indirect) are thought to vary with an individuals status. Two types of status have been shown to be important in predicting emotional expression. First, studies have shown that indicators of an individuals general social status, including gender, social class, age, and education, are related to the experience and expression of emotion (Gordon, 1990; Hochschild, 1983; Kohn, 1969; Mirowsky & Ross, 1995; Schieman, 1999, 2000; Thoits, 1989). Second, theories of and research on dyads and small groups suggest that an individuals status relative to those with whom he or she is interacting predicts emotional reactions (Kemper, 1990; Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). When interacting in small groups, individuals of high status relative to the other group members express negative emotions more often than those of low relative status, and the expression of negative emotion is more likely to be directed at low-status than at high-status group members (Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). Thus, because these two facets of social status have been acknowledged as predictors of emotional experience and expression, I look at both types of status here. Because I focus on workplace anger, I employ occupational status as the main indicator of general social status. Relational status is assessed by the relationship of the individual respondent to the target of his or her anger. I expect both types of status to influence the experience and expression of anger in the same manner. Given the research on general social statuses and emotion, individuals who hold high-status positions should be more likely to directly express their anger than those who hold lower status positions. Similarly, workers
47
who hold a high-status position relative to the target of their anger should be more likely to directly express their anger than those with lower status positions. On the other hand, workers who are in a position of low status relative to the target of their anger should be more likely than those in a position of high relative status to engage in indirect expression of anger.
Hypothesis 2: Workers in high-status occupations and positions will differ from workers in lower status occupations in their experience and expression of anger in the workplace. Hypothesis 2a: Workers in highly esteemed occupations will experience less work-related anger than workers in less regarded occupations. Hypothesis 2b: Workers in high-status occupations will be more likely than workers in low-status occupations to express their anger directly. Hypothesis 2c: Workers who have a lower status than the target of their anger will be less likely than workers with higher status than their anger target to express their anger directly. Hypothesis 2d: Workers will be more likely to express their anger indirectly when the target of anger is of higher relative status.
METHOD
DATA
The data for this study come from the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS). The GSS is a biennial, face-to-face survey with a national probability sample of English-speaking, noninstitutionalized adults in the United States (Davis, Smith, & Marsden, 1999). The version of the survey that was conducted in 1996 included an emotion module that was administered to a random subset of respondents (about half of the sample, N = 1,460). In the emotion module, respondents were asked to report an event in which they were angry in the past month and then respond to a series of closed-ended items about that event, including where the anger occurred, at whom the respondent was angry, how he or she coped with the anger, and how intense the anger was. Of the 882 employed respondents in the sample, 658 (75%) reported experiencing some anger in the past month. Because I am specifically interested in the expression of anger in the workplace, for the analysis of anger expression I limited the sample to those respondents who were working either full- or part-time and reported feeling really angry, irritated, or annoyed at work in the past month. A total of 320 respondents met these criteria for analysis.
48
MEASUREMENT
The GSS emotion module contains the 1980 census occupation code for each working respondent; however, the file does not contain additional information about a respondents job or occupation. Therefore, to obtain measures of occupational characteristics, I merged a file, Occupational Measures From the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for 1980 Census Detailed Occupations (England & Kilbourne, 1988), with the GSS file. England and Kilbourne created the file by computing, for each 1980 census occupation code, a score for each occupational characteristic in the fourth edition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (U.S. Department of Labor, 1977). The Occupational Measures file includes measures of several occupational characteristics, including the extent to which workers must deal with people, the amount of influence the workers have over others, and the amount of esteem given to workers in a particular occupation (see Appendix A for details). Emotion Management Occupations To date, there is no consensus on how to measure the amount of emotion management that is required in an occupation. There are a few quantitative studies that attempted to measure emotion management (or emotional labor). The first quantitative study (Wharton, 1993) measured emotional labor dichotomously, using Hochschilds (1983) list of emotional labor occupations in Appendix C of her book The Managed Heart. Wharton found no difference between jobs requiring and not requiring emotion management in workersreported emotional exhaustion; these results were unexpected given the qualitative evidence (Hochschild, 1983). Pugliesi and Shook (1997) conducted a survey in which they asked respondents about different aspects of emotional labor including covering feelings (i.e., not showing true feelings) and helping coworkers deal with their problems. Both of these measures positively affected job stress. Covering feelings was also associated with psychological distress. Erickson and Wharton (1997) studied inauthenticity2 and job characteristics. They found that the amount of time spent working with others (including coworkers and clients) was associated with lower inauthenticity, whereas using people-handling skills (e.g., customer service) was associated with higher inauthenticity. Erickson and Whartons results suggest that being around others may give workers a chance to express their feelings and thus prevent feelings of inauthenticity, whereas having to deal with people as a requirement in ones job may decrease (or alter) emotional expression and lead to feelings of inauthenticity. Perhaps the most specific
49
strategy employed to date is that of Erickson and Ritter (2001). Erickson and Ritter measured the actual type of emotion felt and managed at work. They found that the management of agitation-related emotions (e.g., anger, irritation, nervousness) was associated with increased feelings of inauthenticity and burnout, as was the amount of time spent working with people. Furthermore, management of agitation was found across a wide variety of occupations. Given the results from previous quantitative research, it seems that emotion management in the workplace may be multifaceted and not adequately captured by measures that only tap aspects of service sector work (Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Steinberg & Figart, 1999). In this article, I use a broad measure of emotion management at work because the general conclusion that can be drawn from the literature is that emotion management processes can be found in nearly all occupations in which the worker must interact with people. Therefore, I use the DOT measure of the extent to which a typical individual working in a particular occupation must deal with people. The dealing with people DOT measure is the percentage of workers in the occupation who are required to deal with people beyond giving and receiving instructions. High scores on this measure are given to occupations in which workers are required to interact with other people customers, clients, and/or coworkersin complex manners, beyond simply giving and receiving instructions. Presumably, then, workers in dealing with people occupations must be skilled in handling interpersonal relations. This measure is similar to the people handling measure used by Erickson and Wharton (1997) because it measures the extent of dealing with people for ones work, not just the amount of time spent around others. Influence and Prestige To tap more complex processes operating between emotion management and status, I use two measures of worker status. Although the research on the expression of emotion and status shows that high-status individuals are more likely to express their true emotions, it is not clear what kind of status is important. Is it simply a matter of whether or not the worker has the ability to influence those with whom he or she interacts, or is it more important to possess general social status (i.e., by virtue of working in an esteemed occupation)? As mentioned earlier, the ability to influence the individuals with whom a worker interacts may increase the likelihood that the worker will express his or her true emotions (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002). However, this type of interactional status may not be enough to significantly influence patterns of emotional expression. Workers might need to have the social prestige
50
necessary to legitimate the direct expression of negative emotions such as anger. First, to differentiate these types of status, I look at the amount of influence that a typical worker in a particular occupation has over others. The DOT influence variable is the percentage of workers in the occupation who are required to influence customers, clients, or coworkers in their opinions, attitudes, or judgments about ideas or things. Given past research on emotional expression, workers who have the ability to influence others at work may be more likely to confront the target of their anger by speaking to him or her directly. Thus, I expect that these workers will be more likely than other workers to express their anger directly because, due to their occupational position, their expression should produce the desired effect (e.g., assert status, intimidate others). Second, I use a measure of occupational prestige. This variable is also taken from the DOT and measures the amount of esteem that a worker is accorded by others by virtue of holding a specific occupational position. Each occupation has a score that indicates the percentage of workers in the aggregated occupational group who perform activities that result in prestige or esteem from others. As with the influence measure, I expect that workers who receive esteem from performing their work will be more likely to express their anger directly than those who do not. Individuals in highly esteemed occupations should be more expressive of their anger because of the latitude of expression allotted to them on the basis of occupational status. Although they may seem similar, these two status indicators are not identical measures of worker status (see Appendix B). The measure of influence indicates the amount of persuasive sway the worker has over those who seek his or her services. Occupations high on this measure include bill and account collection, sales, and teaching occupations. Thus, influence is not the same as prestige. High-prestige occupations are ones that are most highly esteemed in society. Workers in such occupations include physicians, financial managers, lawyers, dentists, and musicians and composers, among others. Although these measures are not identical,3 some occupations (e.g., clergy) may be categorized as high on influence and esteem simultaneously. The DOT indicators are average characteristics of occupations, not characteristics of individuals. Thus, although individual workers within a specific occupation may differ in terms of the amount of contact they have with people, the influence they have over others, and/or the amount of prestige they hold, the measures available in the occupations file do not capture differences at the individual level. Therefore, my analyses rest on the assumption that workers within an occupation experience similar circumstances while at work (e.g., they are treated similarly by others, they adhere to similar norms).
51
Nevertheless, this article represents a first attempt to link occupational characteristics to workersemotional expression using a nationally representative sample. Thus, it is one step forward in understanding the relationship between occupational characteristics (interaction with others and status) and patterns of emotional expression in the workplace. The Experience of Anger The experience of anger in the workplace is measured by responses to a question in which respondents were asked to report a time when they felt really angry, irritated, or annoyed in the past month. Respondents were asked to briefly describe the situation. If they reported an event that occurred while at work, they were coded as having experienced anger in the workplace. In the analyses of anger expression, only the respondents who indicated they had experienced anger at work were included.4 The Expression of Anger Respondents who indicated that they experienced a situation in the past month in which they felt really angry, irritated, or annoyed were asked how they dealt with the situation. These respondents were instructed to indicate how they responded to the situation using a list of 15 strategies that people sometimes use in order to manage their emotions (see Appendix C). They could select as many strategies as applicable. The strategies of talked to the person I was angry or annoyed at and talked to someone else were considered expressive reactions. Coping responses that were not considered expressive include thinking about the situation, praying for help, and exercising. I consider talked to the person I was angry or annoyed at as a direct expression of anger and talked to someone else as an indirect expression of anger. The direct and indirect expressions of anger are analyzed separately as dichotomous outcomes (1 = used the strategy, 0 = did not use the strategy). Although respondents could (and did) report the use of more than one coping strategy, for the purposes of this article, I focus on the direct and the indirect expressions of anger as these are strategies that are expected to have a connection with status. Even if a respondent reported the use of more than one strategy, what matters is whether he or she expressed anger directly or indirectly. Thus, in the analysis of the direct expression of anger, the use of direct expression is compared to all other types of coping. Likewise, in the analysis of the indirect expression of anger, indirect expression is contrasted with all other types of coping. In real life, people engage in several strategies to deal
52
with their feelings (Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Thoits, 1985, 1990). Limiting the analysis to respondents who used only one expressive coping strategy would not only decrease the size of the sample but also decrease the representativeness of the experiences reported. Status of the Target of Anger In reporting an incident when they were angry, respondents were also asked to indicate with whom they were angry. I created dummy variables to indicate anger at the respondents boss, a coworker, a subordinate, a customer or client, or other.5 It may be inferred that a boss is a higher status other, whereas a subordinate is a lower status other. A coworker or a customer or client may be of higher, lower, or equal status to the respondent. Control Variables In each model, I include the following control variables: sex, age, race, education, household income, marital status, and having children 18 years old and younger. Controlling for these demographic variables will ensure that occupational status effects are not a result of other social statuses that have been found to be significant predictors of emotional experience and expression in previous studies (Mirowsky & Ross, 1995; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996; Schieman, 1999, 2000). Also, to be certain that the results are not simply a function of the intensity of the anger (i.e., more angry individuals being more likely to express their anger), I included a control for the intensity of anger in each model. For simplicity of presentation, the control variables are not presented in the tables. However, all control variables are included in each model shown in the tables.6 Qualitative Analysis To supplement the quantitative analyses, I include excerpts from a qualitative analysis of the responses to the open-ended question asking respondents to describe the event that made them feel really angry, irritated, or annoyed in the past month. To facilitate coding and analysis, I entered the responses into AQUAD (Huber, 2001), a qualitative data analysis package. In particular, I focus on patterns in the reasons for anger by the characteristics of the respondents occupation.
53
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 contrasts the characteristics of the sample of all employed respondents, the employed respondents who reported experiencing anger in the past month (in any domain), the employed respondents who indicated the experience of anger at work, the employed respondents who reported anger in some other domain of life (e.g., in their family or at the government), and the employed respondents who did not report an anger episode. The sample of interest in the following analyses, those who reported anger at work, is about half female and about half are married (see Table 1, third column). The average age of the respondents in this group is 40 years. The average income is between $30,000 and $34,999. Most of these respondents do not have minor children and have about 14 years of education on average. As shown in the first three columns in Table 1, the subsample of respondents who reported an experience of anger at work are quite similar, demographically, to the total sample of employed respondents and the complete group of employed respondents who reported an experience of anger. However, as shown in the fourth and fifth columns of the table, the respondents who identified an experience of anger in the workplace differ somewhat from the respondents who reported anger in another domain of life and those who did not report anger. Respondents who reported anger in a domain other than work were significantly more likely to be non-White and have children, and had less education and a lower average family income than those who experienced anger at work. The group of respondents who indicated that they did not experience an anger-arousing event in the past month were more likely to be male, older, and non-White, and less likely to have young children than those who experienced anger in the workplace.
THE EXPERIENCE OF ANGER
Table 2 presents the results from the logistic regressions of the experience of anger at work in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes) on occupational characteristics.7 As shown in Models 1 through 3, net of the control variables, working in a job that requires dealing with people significantly increases the odds of reporting an anger experience at work. Workers who deal with people at work are almost twice as likely as other workers to report a workplace incident. The two occupational status indicators do not significantly influence the odds of reporting anger at work. However, in Model 3, with the addition of
54
WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004 Sample Characteristics (means or percentages)
TABLE 1:
Employed Respondents Who Reported . . . Anger in a Domain Other Than Work in the Past Month
All Employed Respondents

Sex (in percentages) Female Male Age (in years) Race (in percentages) White Other Married (in percentages) Yes No Children > 18 years (in percentages) Yes No Household income Education (in years) N
Anger in the Past Month
Anger at Work in the Month
No Anger in the Past Month
50.2 49.0 40.2 81.9 18.1 48.1 51.9 39.1 60.9 $30,00034,999 14.0 882
52.3 47.7 39.5 82.6 17.4 47.9 52.1
51.2 48.8 39.7 86.5 13.5 47.5 52.5
53.3 46.7 39.4 78.7* 21.3 48.5 51.5
44.1 55.9 42.4* 79.7* 20.3 48.6 51.4 30.6 69.4 $30,00034,999 13.8 224
42.0 38.0 45.9* 58.0 62.0 54.1 $30,000- $30,000- $25,00034,999 34,999 29,999* 14.0 658 14.2 320 13.8* 338
* t tests indicate significantly different from employed respondents who experienced anger at work in the past month at p < .05. t tests indicate significantly different from employed respondents who experienced anger at work in the past month at p < .10.
the occupational prestige measure, the effect of working in an occupation in which the worker must deal with people is slightly reduced (odds ratio from 1.74 to 1.54) and marginally significant (p = .08). These results are consistent with my expectations stated in Hypothesis 1a. I expected that workers who must deal with people as a facet of their occupation will experience more anger at work than those who do not. The analyses
Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE TABLE 2:
55
Coefficients and Odds Ratios (OR) From the Logistic Regression of the Experience of Anger at Work
1 Model
Occupational characteristics Dealing with people Having influence over others Working in a highly esteemed occupation Nagelkerke R N
2
2 OR b OR b
3 OR
.430 1.54 (.250)
.556* 1.74 (.230)
.680** 1.97 (.250) .503 (.395) .605
658
.048
658
.051
.418 1.52 (.326) .051 658
NOTE: Sex, race, age, marital status, having children younger than 18, household income, and education are included as controls in all models. Standard errors are in parentheses. p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
in Table 2 reveal that workers who deal with people at least reported the experience of anger at work more often than other workers. Controlling for occupational status reduces the magnitude of this effect. In general, the more a worker must deal with others at work, the greater the chances of experiencing an other-directed emotion such as anger at work. As mentioned earlier, the emotion of anger is often targeted at another individual. The occupational status of the worker was not a significant predictor of the experience of anger in the workplace. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Workers in highly esteemed occupations were just as likely to report the experience of anger at work as workers in less regarded occupations. Although workers did not differ based on their occupational status characteristics in terms of reporting an anger episode, I did find patterns in the reasons that the respondents reported for experiencing workplace anger. The following excerpts are taken from respondents who ranked either in the highest or lowest quartile on the occupational prestige measure. I highlight these groups of workers to compare respondents who differed on the extremes of this measure. Among workers in occupations that ranked in the lowest quartile on the measure of esteem, a frequently cited reason for anger was mistreatment by others. Forty-six percent of workers in occupations ranking low on the esteem measure reported that they were angered due to rude treatment such as being yelled at, treated unfairly, and disrespected. The excerpts below in
56
which the respondent explains why he or she became angry at work illustrate this observation:8
The way they treat me at work. They lied to me about a promotion. female laborer (low dealing with people, low prestige) Manager screwing me over. My manager is drunk and starts bitching at us. It upsets me that he yells and screams at me. male truck driver (low dealing with people, low prestige) Supervisor speaking rudely to me due to a mistake I rarely make. female waitress (high dealing with people, low prestige) My supervisor at work was chewing me out and didnt allow me to get any words in. It mainly annoyed me because the situation was out of my control. male groundskeeper (low dealing with people, low prestige) Family members of a sick patient expected me to do more for the patient than I could do or was told to do. They kept after me, telling me what to do. female nursing aide (high dealing with people, low prestige) I made a mistake on the job and the plant manager disciplined me. I did not like the way he talked to me. female textile machine operator (low dealing with people, low prestige) The printer broke down at work and customers want their photos now. female cashier (high dealing with people, low prestige)
As these examples show, mistreatment by others was a common reason for anger among workers in low-prestige occupations. These respondents often reported being yelled at by others, not being trusted, not being treated fairly, and not being respected. The majority of the instances cited were due to acts of superiors or of customers and clients. In comparison, when looking at the workers who ranked in the highest quartile on the occupational esteem measure, mistreatment was rarely cited as a reason for anger. Only 18% of the workers in highly esteemed occupations reported that their anger was in response to being mistreated by others. Further, the mistreatment cited by high-status workers was for reasons such as a lack of recognition, rather than for being reprimanded or verbally insulted (as the low-status workers reported). For example, a female manager reported that she was angered at a senior person who wouldnt listen or act on what [she] believed was sound advice. There were no cases in which a worker in a highly esteemed occupation reported being yelled at (i.e., was the recipient of negative emotional expression). In contrast, a commonly cited reason for anger among workers in highly esteemed occupations was the poor performance of another worker (either a boss, coworker, or subordinate). The following excerpts illustrate this pattern:
57
Somebody didnt perform the job I gave him to do. female physician (high dealing with people, high prestige) A supplier did not do what he was supposed to do and it impacted my business. male financial officer (high dealing with people, high prestige) An incompetent employee has not been performing up to my standards and expectations. female manager/administrator (high dealing with people, high prestige) Someone at work didnt communicate information to me that I thought was important. male administrator/official (high dealing with people, high prestige) Someone was supposed to be helping me at work. They did something without my approval and it hurt the case we were working on. It made me feel very annoyed and angry. male lawyer (high dealing with people, high prestige) I was at work and I had to re-do a project because someone didnt have time. female management-related occupation (high dealing with people, high prestige)
Thus, for workers in highly esteemed occupations, a major source of work-related anger is the performance of others. Many such respondents cited instances in which the actions of another worker disrupted the work and goals of the respondent. As shown in the excerpts, the patterns in the responses suggest a status difference. Lower status workers often reported experiencing anger due to mistreatment by others. This pattern was expected, given the norm of deference shown to higher status individuals. As many of these excerpts describe the display of negative emotion (yelling, rudeness), this pattern lends support to the claim that negative emotion flows down the status hierarchy (Clark, 1990; Hochschild, 1979). Workers in low-prestige occupations often reported experiencing anger as a result of being the target of negative emotional expression. Thus, although no significant differences were found for the likelihood of experiencing anger at work among individuals of differing statuses (see Table 1), there are clear differences in the reasons that workers of differing statuses experienced anger. The next step in my analysis is to determine the relationship between occupational status and the expression of anger.
THE EXPRESSION OF ANGER
For the analyses of the expression of anger, only respondents who reported experiencing anger at work are analyzed. The frequencies of the coping strategies used and the mean occupational characteristics of the
58
WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004 Mean Occupational Characteristics for Employed Respondents Who Reported the Experience of Anger at Work by Coping Strategy
TABLE 3:
Used at Least Did Not One Use an Expressed Expressed Expressed Expressive Expressive Total Anger Anger Indirectly Coping Coping Strategy Strategy Coping Strategy Sample Directly Indirectly Only a
Occupational characteristic mean score Occupational esteem 25.5*** 31.1 Dealing with people 60.2 58.9 Influence over others 12.7 13.1 N 320 112 % of total 100 35.0
26.7** 64.6 13.8 240 75.0
23.9*** 65.1 13.8 156 48.8
26.9** 63.1 13.5 268 83.6
18.9*** 46.3 8.4* 52 16.3
a. Although respondents in this category only used indirect expression (as an expressive coping strategy), they may have used nonexpressive strategies as well. * indicates mean is significantly different from the mean for respondents who expressed anger directly at p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. indicates mean is significantly different from the mean for respondents who expressed anger indirectly at p < .05, p < .01, p < .001, p < .10.
respondents who used the strategies are reported in Table 3. The values in the table are the mean occupational ratings of the respondents who used the particular coping strategy. Recall that the DOT occupational measures are average characteristics of the workers in an occupation. Each occupation is given a percentage to indicate the amount of time a typical worker spends dealing with people, the amount of esteem a typical worker receives, and the amount of influence a typical worker has over others when working in a particular occupation. Most of the respondents reported using more than one coping strategy. The majority of the respondents (84%) reported using at least one expressive coping strategy (either speaking directly to the target of anger or speaking to someone else). Speaking to another person (indirect expression) was the most common coping strategy (see Appendix C). About 75% of the employed respondents expressed their work-related anger indirectly. Speaking to the target of anger (direct expression) was the fourth most common coping
59
strategy. About 35% of the employed respondents who reported anger at work expressed their anger directly. As shown in Table 3, there are patterns of expression by the occupational characteristics of the respondents. First, those who directly expressed their anger by speaking to the target of their anger have a significantly higher mean esteem score than those who used other strategies. Respondents who did not use expressive coping had the lowest mean esteem score (18.9; column 6), followed by those who did not directly express their anger but indirectly expressed it by talking to someone else (23.9; column 4). Second, the respondents who spoke to someone else about their anger had the highest mean score for dealing with people (65.1; column 4). This mean is significantly higher than that for respondents who did not use an expressive coping strategy (46.3; column 6) and marginally higher than the mean score for those who expressed their anger directly (58.9; column 2, p = .06). Differences between those who directly expressed their anger and those who indirectly expressed their anger were small in terms of the amount of influence the workers have over others. However, those who did not express their anger have a significantly lower mean score on the influence measure than those who directly and/or indirectly expressed their anger. The results of logistic regressions lend support to some of these patterns. Table 4 presents the odds ratios from the logistic regression of speaking directly to the target of the anger, the measure of direct anger expression. Here, workers who expressed their anger directly to the anger target (coded 1) are compared to those who did not express their anger directly (coded 0). Contrary to Hypothesis 1b, the extent to which a worker must deal with people does not decrease the likelihood of direct anger expression (Model 1). Likewise, the amount of influence the worker has over others (Model 3) is not a significant predictor. As shown in Model 5, however, workers in occupations that are esteemed by others are significantly more likely than other workers to express their anger directly. This effect remains significant in Model 6 with the addition of the variables measuring the status of the target of anger. Thus, regardless of the status of the target, workers in highly esteemed occupations are almost three times more likely to express their anger directly to the target than are individuals who work in less esteemed occupations.9 This finding offers support for Hypothesis 2b. In addition, as shown in Models 4 and 6, the relative status of the anger target affects the likelihood of direct expression. For these analyses, the anger target of subordinate is the reference category. Workers who were angry at a boss (a higher status other) were significantly less likely to express their anger directly than were workers who were angry at a subordinate (a lower
60 Coefficients and Odds Ratios (OR) From the Logistic Regression of the Direct Expression of Anger at Work (speaking to the target about anger)
TABLE 4:
1 b
.172 (.370) 1.57 1.19 .137 1.147 (.378) 1.07 .218 (.414)
2 OR b OR b OR b OR b OR
5 b
6 OR
.821
Model
Occupational characteristics Dealing with people .069 (.367) .449 (.613) .024 1.06 (.408) .683 1.98 (.630)
Having influence over others
.805 .197 (.417) 1.12* 3.07 (.485)
Working in a highly esteemed occupation

a
.999* 2.72 (.488) .354 .471 .340 .337 .424 .576 .418 .397
Status of target Boss .382 .494 .363 .351 320 .056
Coworker
Customer/client
Other 320 .053
2 Nagelkerke R N
.962* (.435) .705 (.435) 1.01 (.591) 1.05* (.429) .083 320
1.04* (.441) .753 (.438) 1.08 (.597) 1.09* (.431) .088 320
320
.076
.857* (.295) .551 (.442) .872 (.595) .923* (.433) .100 320
NOTE: Sex, race, age, marital status, having children younger than 18, household income, education, and the intensity of the anger are included as controls in all models. Standard errors are in parentheses. a. Subordinate is the reference category. *p < .05.
61
status other). This result supports Hypothesis 2c. Workers who were angry at someone else at work were also less likely than those angry at a subordinate to express their anger directly. This coefficient, however, is not interpretable because it is not known to whom the respondent may be referring.10 Respondents who were angry at a coworker or a customer or client do not significantly differ from those who were angry at a subordinate in their likelihood of expressing their anger directly. The coefficients, however, are in the direction that would be expected if respondents are most likely to express anger directly to a lower status worker, as would be expected given the literature on the expression of negative emotion (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). The nonsignificant coefficient for the customer or client anger target suggests that customers and clients are not unanimously treated as higher status others in the same manner that bosses are. Although workers are likely to defer to customers or clients, particularly in service sector occupations (Hall, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Leidner, 1993), this is not reflected in the analysis of direct anger expression. In sum, workers differ in their anger expressivity at work based on the status of their occupation. However, workers in occupations requiring extensive contact with people (presumably occupations that require emotion management) are no less likely to express their anger directly than are other workers (i.e., they are no more likely to manage their emotions). Thus, workers in highly esteemed occupations are more likely to express their anger directly regardless of whether they are working in occupations in which they must manage their emotions (as measured here). Furthermore, the esteem given to workers by virtue of holding a particular occupational position is more important in predicting the direct expression of anger than is the amount of influence that the worker has over the customers, clients, or coworkers with whom he or she must interact. In addition, in terms of direct anger expression, workers who were angry at a client, customer, or coworker are no different from workers who are angry at a subordinate. However, a status pattern is revealed in the coefficient for the boss anger target. Respondents angry at a boss were significantly less likely to express their anger directly than were those angry at a subordinate. Next, I investigate the relationship between occupational characteristics and the indirect expression of anger. In this analysis, workers who used the indirect expression of anger as at least one coping strategy (coded 1) are compared to those who did not use indirect expression (coded 0). In Table 5, the odds ratios of speaking to a person other than the anger target about anger at work (i.e., indirect expression) are reported.11 Working in occupations that require extensive contact with other people significantly influences the likelihood of indirectly expressing anger in Models 1, 2, 4, and 6 and is a
62 Coefficients and Odds Ratios (OR) From the Logistic Regression of the Indirect Expression of Anger at Work (speaking to another person about anger)
TABLE 5:
1 b
.861* (.406) 1.37 2.37 1.13** 3.12 (.433) 2.21 .859 2.36 (.456) .005 1.00 (.583)
2 OR b OR b OR b OR b OR
5 b
6 OR
1.14* 3.05 (.483) .057 1.06 (.611)
Model
Occupational characteristics Dealing with people .792 (.439) .311 (.777) 1.12* 3.06 (.467) .072 1.07 (.796)
Having influence over others
Working in a highly esteemed occupation

a
Status of target Boss
Coworker
Customer/client
Other 320 .145
2 Nagelkerke R N
1.18* 3.26 (.534) .539 1.71 (.499) .403 .669 (.928) .448 .639 (.474) .222 .146 320 320
1.18* 3.24 (.387) .536 1.71 (.499) .408 .665 (.514) .450 .637 (.474) .222 .145 320 320
1.19* 3.28 (.539) .547 1.73 (.506) .397 .673 (.631) .441 .643 (.480) .222 320
NOTE: Sex, race, age, marital status, having children younger than 18, household income, education, and the intensity of the anger are included as controls in all models. Standard errors are in parentheses. a. Target of subordinate is the reference category. *p < .05. **p < .01. p < .10.
63
marginally significant predictor in Models 3 and 5. Workers in occupations that require extensive contact with people are more likely to express their anger by discussing it with others than are workers who spend less time dealing with people. However, with the addition of the occupational status variables, this effect is slightly reduced (Models 3 and 5). The effect is strengthened with the addition of the target status variables in Models 2, 4, and 6, lending support to Hypothesis 1c. Neither of the occupational status characteristic measures (prestige or influence in Models 3 and 5) are significant predictors of the indirect expression of anger. However, respondents who were angry at their boss were more than three times more likely to express their anger indirectly by talking to others than were those who were angry at a subordinate. This result supports Hypothesis 2d, that workers are significantly more likely to express their anger indirectly when the target of anger is of higher relative status. Thus, as expected, workers who must deal extensively with people are more likely to talk to others about their anger than are workers who deal less with people. This may be in response to the emotion management expectations placed on these individuals at work. Workers may seek the support of similar or lower status workers (i.e., reciprocal emotion management) to help deal with management of negative emotion generated when interacting with higher status others (Lively, 2000). On the other hand, this effect may indicate that people workers are deflecting their anger downward (Clark, 1990). Although a worker may be mad at a higher status other, he or she may not directly express his or her anger to the higher status target but will perhaps redirect his or her anger onto a lower status other. Alternatively, this effect may be the result of having more people at work with whom workers may discuss their anger. Workers in occupations in which they must deal extensively with people are typically in contact with other workers who also deal with people. Thus, there may simply be more people around with whom workers can discuss anger. Finally, workers who must deal with people may be seeking support from people outside the workplace. Regardless of the reason, workers who deal with people and those who are angry at a boss are more likely to speak to another person about their anger than are other workers. Possible explanations for this effect cannot be tested here and should be considered in future research. DISCUSSION The results reported in this article shed some light on the relationship between occupational status and emotion and are generally consistent with expectations based on previous research. The findings offer support for five
64
of the seven specific hypotheses discussed. First, as expected in Hypothesis 1, workers who deal extensively with people on the job experience more work-related anger than those working in other types of occupations. In addition, workers who deal with people are more likely than other types of workers to express their anger indirectly. However, Hypothesis 1b was not supported. Workers in occupations that require dealing with people were no less likely than workers in other occupations to express their anger directly to the anger target. One potential reason for the greater frequency of work-related anger incidents by people workers is that they may have an increased probability of experiencing an other-directed emotion such as anger, simply by spending much of their time with other people. As a female food counter worker said, At work there are small disagreements on little or unimportant issueshaving to deal with uneducated people makes her angry. Simply being around more people may increase the anger and frustration felt by the worker. Also associated with spending a great amount of time interacting with others is the increased likelihood of being subject to rude or unfair treatment. For example, a door-to-door salesman reported that he became angry at customers because [theyre] not listening to what I have to say. In addition, working in an occupation that requires an extensive amount of interaction with people predicts the indirect expression of anger even when the status of the target is controlled. By indirectly expressing their felt anger, workers are managing their emotions. As Lively (2000) illustrated, it is possible that these workers are engaging in reciprocal emotion management, dealing with the possible negative effects of suppressing their anger by seeking outlets in talk with other workers. Although this is likely, the specific content of the indirect expressions and the persons to whom they speak (i.e., if the worker is seeking support) are not available in the data and should be considered in future research. Contrary to my expectations, there was not a significant relationship between working in a people occupation and the direct expression of anger. Given the emotion management literature, I expected individuals working in occupations that require dealing with people to be less likely than workers who do not deal with people to express their anger directly. My findings suggest that not all people occupations require emotion management. Thus, the DOT measure that I employ may not be an adequate measure of occupations that require emotion management. This measure is used to capture occupations that may require workers to perform emotion management and is measured at the level of the occupation. Such requirements may be better assessed at the level of the job.
65
In reference to my second hypothesis, three of the four subhypotheses concerning status and the experience and expression of anger were supported. Hypothesis 2a, that higher status workers would experience less work-related anger, was not supported. However, the qualitative analysis of the reasons for anger was patterned and revealing. High status workers most frequently reported experiencing anger at work due to the behavior of others that interfered with their own endeavors. On the other hand, workers in less esteemed occupations commonly reported experiencing anger because of mistreatment, particularly by higher status others. This pattern is consistent with the argument that negative emotion tends to flow down the status hierarchy (Clark, 1990; Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995). The remaining hypotheses (2b through 2d) about the expression of anger and status were supported. As shown in the analyses reported in Table 4, a key variable in predicting the direct expression of anger at work is occupational prestige. Workers in highly esteemed occupations were more likely to express their anger directly than were workers in less esteemed occupations. The results of these analyses indicate that it is not whether the worker can influence coworkers or customers and clients nor whether he or she works in a people occupation, but occupational prestige that influences the likelihood of expressing anger directly. This suggests that the general status of the worker in society (that is, how the occupation is viewed by society in general) is an important predictor of direct anger expression. In addition, the results lend support to Hypothesis 2c concerning relative status. Workers who were angry at a boss were significantly less likely to express their anger directly than were those who were angry at a subordinate. This finding upholds the idea that individuals are more likely to express anger to a lower status individual than to a higher status individual (Conway et al., 1999; Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Lively, 2000; Pierce, 1995; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). Of the target status variables, the target of boss is the only target that is clearly of higher status than the worker, and this was the only target status variable to differ significantly from the target of subordinate. Finally, workers who were angry at a boss were more likely than those angry at a subordinate to express their anger indirectly. This finding suggests that workers angry at a higher status individual may seek support or help in dealing with their anger, or they may deflect their anger onto others. Although workers may not turn to others for aid in dealing with their anger at a subordinate, workers angry at a boss show a propensity to turn to others when coping with their anger.
66
CONCLUSION This study is a preliminary attempt to specify the relationship between occupational characteristics and the experience and expression of anger in the workplace. A measure of the extent to which workers must deal with people assessed the degree of emotion management required in an occupation. Two separate measures were used to indicate worker status: the amount of influence the worker has over other workers and customers and clients, and the amount of esteem or prestige given to workers in a particular occupation. The analyses revealed some expected patterns in the experience and expression of workplace anger. Workers in occupations that require dealing extensively with people report the experience of anger more frequently than workers in other types of occupations. The expression of anger was affected by interacting with people at work, occupational status, and the workers status relative to the target of his or her anger. Workers in people occupations are likely to discuss their anger with someone other than the anger target, whereas those working in highly esteemed occupations and those angry at a lower status worker are likely to express their anger directly to the anger target. Although this article has identified some general patterns in the experience and expression of anger in the workplace based on occupational characteristics, steps should be taken to further specify this relationship. It is important, as noted, that the occupational characteristics used here were measured at the level of the occupation. The next step is to determine if similar patterns hold for job characteristics measured at the individual level. In addition, the indicators of anger experience and expression at work used in this article are descriptions of one freely recalled incident of anger and responses to that one incident. Obviously, these are indirect measures of the actual frequency of anger experiences and expressive coping strategies used on a daily basis at work. Ideally, reports of how frequently workers get angry at work and what they usually do about it would be best suited for such analyses (Erickson & Ritter, 2001). Furthermore, as the data used in the article are cross-sectional, the question remains whether occupational characteristics influence patterns of emotional expression or whether it is a process of self-selection into certain occupations based on expressive tendencies. Research on personality, psychological functioning, and occupational characteristics suggests that such a relationship may be reciprocal (Kohn & Schooler, 1973, 1982). Although questions of directionality cannot be tested here, the way in which occupational status becomes associated with emotional expressivity is important to consider in future research.
67
APPENDIX A Occupational Measures From the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for 1980 Census Detailed Occupations (ICPSR 8942)
From Paula England and Barbara Kilbourne (1988) Summary: This collection provides average scores on selected variables from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for 1980 Census detailed occupational codes. This file, known as the Treiman file, was merged with selected variables from the Fourth Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, using 1970 occupational categories as the merge variable. A score on each Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) variable was then computed for each 1980 occupational category.
APPENDIX B Examples of the Range of Types of Workers in the Occupational Categories Analyzed
Occupations that require high levels of dealing with people: Administrators and Officials Cashiers Sales Workers Food Counter and Fountain-Related Workers Hairdressers and Cosmetologists General Supervisors Public Service Guards Occupations that require low levels of dealing with people: Hand Packers and Packagers Truck Drivers Bookkeepers Industrial Machinery Repairers Chemists Laborers Civil Engineers Occupations with high prestige that receive great amounts of esteem: Actors and Directors Administrators Business and Promotion Agents Lawyers Physicians Financial Managers Clergy Occupations with low prestige that receive little esteem: Administrative Support Occupations Bus Drivers
68
WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004 Cashiers Waiters and Waitresses Child Care Workers Machinists Sales Workers Welders and Cutters
Occupations in which workers have great influence over others: Lawyers Teachers Social Workers Public Relations Specialists Clergy Editors and Reporters Occupations in which workers have little influence over others: Assemblers Bank Tellers Chemical Technicians Cashiers Computer Programmers
APPENDIX C Frequencies of Coping Strategy Use Overall and Singularly (in percentages)
Used This Used Only Strategy This Strategy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. tried to think about the situation in a different way had a drink or took a pill talked to the person I was angry or annoyed at talked to someone else about how I felt tried to forget it by doing or thinking about something else tried to change the situation by doing something prayed for help from God fantasized about a magical solution to the problem went out to get some exercise to make me feel better yelled or hit something to let out my pent-up feelings waited for feelings to pass tried to accept the situation as it was left the situation thought about how to get revenge planned how to end the relationship with the person other 37.3 3.7 35.0 75.0 34.9 32.7 20.4 5.6 15.1 4.6 31.5 47.5 14.8 5.6 6.2 4.3 .63 .0 2.2 4.4 .6 .9 .6 .0 .3 .0 1.6 1.9 .6 .0 .0 .0
69
NOTES
1. To my knowledge, Basch and Fisher (2000) was the only study of the reasons for experiencing anger at work. 2. Erickson and Wharton (1997) measured job-related inauthenticity by a scale asking how often the respondent felt they could not be themselves while at work and how much they had to fake how they really felt at work. 3. The correlation between these two measures is relatively weak (r = .20). 4. The experience of anger refers to actually feeling angry while at work. Respondents who experienced the feeling of anger within themselves were coded as having an experience of anger. These were coded by GSS researchers in postinterview coding. 5. In the GSS, respondents could report having more than one target of anger. Less than 5% of the sample used in these analyses reported more than one target of anger at work. To be conservative, given my expectations for anger expression, I coded respondents who reported anger at a boss and at a coworker as being angry at a coworker (because I argue that respondents should be less likely to directly express anger to a higher status other). I coded respondents who were angry at a boss and a subordinate as angry at a subordinate. I coded respondents who were angry at a client and coworker as angry at a coworker. Alternate coding schemes did not change the results. The category other may contain any anger target not classified as one of the four main work-related anger targets. 6. I also included a control for working part- versus full-time. However, this control had no influence on the results and was excluded from further analyses. The addition of the other control variables had no effect on the relationships found. Tables including the control variables are available from the author upon request. 7. In the analyses in Table 2, I analyze only those respondents who reported experiencing anger in the past month to control for biases in the reporting of an anger-causing event. I performed the same set of analyses using all employed respondents and found the same results. 8. A note of high prestige and high dealing with people means that the respondents occupation is within the highest quartile in the ranking of occupations on these measures. Similarly, a note of low prestige indicates that the respondents occupation fell within the lowest quartile on this measure of esteem given the workers. There were no occupations that were ranked in the highest quartile on prestige and in the lowest quartile on dealing with people. 9. In analyses not shown here, I also tested the relationship between occupational prestige and direct expression of anger among only those respondents who outwardly expressed their anger (i.e., eliminating those who used coping strategies other than direct or indirect expression of anger). The same results as reported in Table 4 were found. 10. This category is included in the analyses to make clean comparisons between the other target status variables and the subordinate target status. 11. Also, I excluded respondents who reported both direct and indirect expressions of anger and then regressed the indirect expression of anger on the occupational characteristics and controls and found the same results as those reported in Table 5.
REFERENCES
Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Basch, T., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, E. J. Hartel, & C.E.J. Zerbe (Eds.),
70
Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 36-48). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Bellas, M. (1999). Emotional labor in academia: The case of professors. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 96-110. Cahill, S. E. (1999). Emotional capital and professional socialization: The case of mortuary science students (and me). Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(2), 101-116. Clark, C. (1990). Emotions and micropolitics in everyday life: Some patterns and paradoxes of place. In T. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 505-533). Albany: State University of New York Press. Collins, R. (1990). Stratification, emotional energy, and the transient emotions. In T. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 27-57). Albany: State University of New York Press. Conway, M. R., DiFazio, R., & Mayman, S. (1999). Judging othersemotions as a function of the others status. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(3), 291-305. Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (1999). General social surveys, 1972-1998 [machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. Denham, G., & Bultemeier, K. (1993). Anger: Targets and triggers. In S. Thomas (Ed.), Women and anger (pp. 68-90). New York: Springer. England, P., & Kilbourne, B. (1988). Occupational measures from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for 1980 census detailed occupations. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 146-163. Erickson, R. J., & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression: Assessing the consequences of interactive service work. Work and Occupations, 24(2), 188-213. Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. (2002). Grinning, frowning, and emotionlessness: 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. Gordon, S. L. (1990). Social structural effects on emotion. In T. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 145-179). Albany: State University of New York Press. Haas, J. (1977). Learning real feelings: A study of high steel iron workers reactions to fear and danger. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 4(2), 147-170. Hall, E. J. (1993). Smiling, deferring, and flirting: Doing gender by giving good service. Work and Occupations, 20(4), 452-471. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(2), 551-575. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Huber, G. L. (2001). Analysis of qualitative data with AQUAD Five for Windows. Schwangau, Germany: Verlag Ingebord Huber. (Distributed by ProGAMMA, Inc.) Kemper, T. D. (1990). Social relations and emotions: A structural approach. In T. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 207-237). Albany: State University of New York Press. Kohn, M. (1969). Class and conformity: A study in values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1973). Occupational experience and psychological functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 38, 97-118. Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology, 87(6), 1257-1286.
71
Leidner, R. (1993). Fast food, fast talk: Service work and the routinization of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lively, K. J. (2000). Reciprocal emotion management: Working together to maintain stratification in private law firms. Work and Occupations, 27(1), 32-63. Lively, K. J. (2002). Client contact and emotional labor: Upsetting the balance and evening the field. Work and Occupations, 29(2), 198-225. Lovaglia, M. J., & Houser, J. A. (1996). Emotional reactions and status in groups. American Sociological Review, 61, 869-883. McCammon, H., & Griffin, L. (2000). Workers and their customers and clients: An introduction. Work and Occupations, 27, 278-293. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1989). Social causes of psychological distress. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1995). Sex differences in distress: Real or artifact? American Sociological Review, 60, 449-468. Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23(2), 125-155. Pugliesi, K., & Shook, S. (1997). Gender, jobs, and emotional labor in a complex organization. In D. D. Franks & R. J. Erickson (Eds.), Social perspectives on emotion, Volume 4 (pp. 283316). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37. Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior and status in task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95(5), 1189-1212. Rogers, J. K. (1995). Just a temp: Experience and structure of alienation in temporary clerical employment. Work and Occupations, 22(2), 137-166. Ross, C. E., & Van Willigen, M. (1996). Gender, parenthood, and anger. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 572-584. Schieman, S. (1999). Age and anger. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40(3), 273-289. Schieman, S. (2000). Education and the activation, course, and management of anger. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(1), 20-39. Smith, A. C., & Kleinman, S. (1989). Managing emotions in medical school: Students contacts with the living and the dead. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(1), 56-69. Smith-Lovin, L. (1995). The sociology of affect and emotion. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 118-148). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Stearns, C. Z., & Stearns, P. N. (1986). Anger: The struggle for emotional control in Americas history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Steinberg, R. J., & Figart, D. M. (1999). Emotional demands at work: A job content analysis. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 177-191. Stets, J. E., & Tsushima, T. M. (2001). Negative emotion and coping responses within identity control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(3), 283-295. Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245-268. Tavris, C. (1989). Anger: The misunderstood emotion. New York: Simon & Schuster. Thoits, P. A. (1985). Self-labeling processes in mental illness: The role of emotional deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 91(2), 221-249. Thoits, P. A. (1989). The sociology of emotions. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 317-342.
72
Thoits, P. A. (1990). Emotional deviance: Research agendas. In T. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 180-103). Albany: State University of New York Press. Tiendens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 86-94. U.S. Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20(2), 205-232.
Melissa M. Sloan is a graduate student in the sociology department at Vanderbilt University. Her research interests include emotion, work and occupations, mental health, and social psychology. She is currently collecting survey data to further investigate emotion management processes in the workplace.

Work and Occupations 2004 Sloan 38 72.Pp

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Work and Occupations 2004 Sloan 38 72.Pp

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Work http://wox.sagepub.

com/ and Occupations

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 2004 What is This?

Downloaded from wox.sagepub.com at Uni Babes-Bolyai on October 30, 2013

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004 Sample Characteristics (means or percentages)

All Employed Respondents

Anger in the Past Month

Anger at Work in the Month

No Anger in the Past Month

52.3 47.7 39.5 82.6 17.4 47.9 52.1

51.2 48.8 39.7 86.5 13.5 47.5 52.5

53.3 46.7 39.4 78.7* 21.3 48.5 51.5

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE TABLE 2:

.556* 1.74 (.230)

.680** 1.97 (.250) .503 (.395) .605

.418 1.52 (.326) .051 658

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

26.7** 64.6 13.8 240 75.0

23.9*** 65.1 13.8 156 48.8

26.9** 63.1 13.5 268 83.6

18.9*** 46.3 8.4* 52 16.3

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

Having influence over others

.805 .197 (.417) 1.12* 3.07 (.485)

Working in a highly esteemed occupation

Status of target Boss .382 .494 .363 .351 320 .056

Other 320 .053

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

Having influence over others

Working in a highly esteemed occupation

Status of target Boss

Other 320 .145

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Sloan / EXPERIENCING ANGER IN THE WORKPLACE

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / February 2004

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen