Talk:Emotional labor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hi, I need a few guidelines.. Thanks Hila

Some guidelines[edit]

  • Sign your entry on a discussion page with four tildes "~". I did so and that produces: DCDuring 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't get intimidated by the the tags.
  • The article needs to be Wikified. It doesn't look like original research to me and you have plenty of references and specific citations. They should be put in Wikipedia form. If there is controversy, then you may need to get to page citations, but that would be farther down the road. I will read the article more carefully over the next few days.

Also see your own personal discussion page for a note I left you on a related matter. Put a little something about yourself on your personal page (click where it has Hila in red.). I've not been at this too long myself. DCDuring 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add proper reference citations[edit]

The way the article is sourced is inadequate. The reader must be able to go to the source, page number, etc. The reference citation for each statement must be retrievable by the reader and able to be verified. Please see WP:CITE, WP:FN, WP:V etc. Long lists of referenced at the bottom are useless and look bad, over the top. All books must have ISBN. Regards, --Mattisse 03:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This level of precision is rarely reached. It does not warrant heavy tagging for what is a very promising article. DCDuring 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, could you please provide a link to one of your articles to show us how it's done. DCDuring 03:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This was just a DYK Songyue Pagoda . I have started work on Forensic psychology in the last week. Since I have just begun, it still needs much work. The best policy, and the one I always follow, is to add a citation every time you add information. --Mattisse 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. the Songyue Pagoda was written in a day since the criteria for DYK is the article must be less than five days old. Also, it was a subject that I knew nothing about. I researched the information and each time I added it to the article, I added a reference citation to source it. --Mattisse 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Forensic psychology article I did not originate. Therefore I am cleaning it up. However, I wrote Theodore H. Blau in the last few days. The way to go is to start out small and build as you gather information and references. --Mattisse 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, --Hila2410 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking Good!!![edit]

Having the references make this look so much more professional. There may be folks who want to challenge things, but this is really good. Now you might want to look at what links to this article and see what opportunities there might be improve how they refer to this article (in-line is better than see also). Also you might want to insert references this page that SHOULD be in others. Text searching all of WP articles on alternative words and especially phrases that are related can be fun and make the article more useful. DCDuring 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I work in an Emotional Labor kind of position[edit]

And I am not certain that the existing research applies directly, as I not seeing my personal experiences in it. I have the best time at my job, selling vices such as lottery tickets, cigarettes, marijuana items such as "skins" and papers, and coffee (if coffee is a vice). I also sell milk and other groceries as well as gasoline. Gibberish, blahdiblah completely irrelevant.

I know that I have to be positive for certain customers who exceptions, meaning who appear to be defective in some way, and appear defective in that way every time I see them. Most customers will take me as I am, some will even cheer me up during the rare moments I am not cheerful.WHAT?

~~John Bessa —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

difficult to understand & complex[edit]

surely the most basic & common example of emotional labor is staff appearing smiling and happy to customers.--Penbat (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential Revisions to article[edit]

In hopes of expanding the depth and legitimacy of Wikipedia, I would like to further develop this article. I would like to add research-based conclusions from psychological and sociological research journals, such as work completed by Rebecca Erickson, Alicia Grandey, David Holman, Arlie Hochschild, R. Leidner, and S.H. Lopez. Along with adding research-based conclusions, I would also like to connect these theoretical concepts to specific examples of emotional labor with the current labor market. Specifically, I would like to add research-based conclusions from both sociological and psychological research journals on emotional labor under the subsections “Forms of emotional labor” and “Emotional labor in organizations.” I would also like to add information to the subsections entitled “Determinants of using emotional labor,” and “Implications of using emotional labor.” All of the added information would be research-based conclusions from both sociological and psychological research journals. I would also like to connect the concept of emotional labor to the concept of alienation first theorized by Karl Marx, which would require adding a new section to the article.

Besides having mediocre ratings based on Wikipedia standards while also missing substantial amounts of important information, the importance of the article’s subject matter merits its expansion. Most people hope to be an effective and successful member of the workforce. However, being an effective member of the workforce does not only require having the necessary individual qualifications. Success also requires understanding how the workforce operates as an institution. The concept of emotional labor is a theoretical concept first theorized by Arlie Hochschild that brings a specific and important understanding of the workforce to light. Specifically, as the American economy shifts from a manufacturing to a service economy, control of one’s emotions based on companies’ standards have become so important that emotions have become a commodity in and of themselves. Essentially, I think understanding how emotional labor works ultimately leads to a better understanding of the labor force more generally. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions on any potentially useful resources. Please keep in mind that this contribution is part of a class assignment at Rice University.

Morell21 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Morell21, great and ambitious plans! Just one comment. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisions Feedback[edit]

Hi Morell21, I first off want to say that I read over the changes you made to the article and it looks like you added a lot of really great scholarly content, which is great! I do have a few comments that I hope will help you to improve the page even further. First off, the main thing that really jumped out at me was your use of links. There were way too many of them; if you link to something, ie nurses, you do not link to it the next time it appears. You only need to link once, and there are some links that appear multiple times. Also, really think about the things you link to. A lot of the links, like scholars, evidence, goals, role, happy, friends, women, (I could go on) are so general as to almost be really unnecessary, or so broad that when you actually click on them they take you to a page with a whole range of options. For instance, transmutation was a concept that was a little confusing to me that I feel like could be fleshed out a little more, but when I clicked the link it took me to a page asking if I meant biological transmutation, dimensional transmutation, nuclear transmutation, and a whole host of others. Additionally, estrangement linked to a page about a Ukrainian black metal band. So just be a little more careful with your links; make sure that they're not repetitive, that they're relevant, and that they link to the page you want them to link to. Beyond issues with linking, I would say the main thing is that the article is a little difficult to read. The information is quality but sometimes it feels so academic that it is difficult to read, hard to follow, or not very clear. I would just work on making the article more accessible by providing more examples of these concepts you're talking about. For example, you give specific examples of what bodily or expressive emotion work looks like, but don't provide an example of cognitive emotion work. Also, fleshing out your terms a bit more would be really helpful--in what sense are you using the term estrangement? What exactly is transmutation? These kinds of concepts are represented very academically but may be difficult for readers to grasp. Finally, I would really like to see the gender and emotional labor and implications of emotional labor headings expanded on, especially for this class. Expanding on the effect of emotional labor on job segregation, the wage gap, and class inequalities would make for very interesting reading, and some concrete examples would be great. Other than that, great work! Rachel.m.mitchell (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rachel.m.mitchell. I first want to thank you for reading over my article and giving me suggestions that have the potential of improving my contribution. A couple of other Wiki users have already gone through my article and deleted some unnecessary/repetitive links. I also have some ideas to help better explain the concept of transmutation. To address your concerns with the scholarly nature of this article, I think it's important to realize that emotional labor is a theoretical concept and thus will be require a lot of scholarly sources/explanations. Unlike topics such as water scarcity in Africa that is a little more straightforward and has evidence directly from affected populations, emotional labor is a sociological theoretical concept attempting to explain the American workforce. However, I will try and edit the article in such as way that will make it more assessable to a broader audience. However, I do think keeping it based on scholarly work and conclusions is both informative and necessary. In terms of expanding how emotional labor affects gender and social inequality more generally, I need to be careful since those are extremely bias and controversial claims. Thus, I purposely attribute such claims to specific authors and do not attempt to make connections of my own since that would go against Wikipedia standards. Thanks again!

Morell21 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional Contributions Feedback[edit]

Hi Morell21, I really enjoyed reading your article! This article is really well-done and does a great job of incorporating scholarly work. A few minor things: in terms of citations, I don't think that you have to list the year after the authors' names (I'm not sure that this is proper for Wikipedia citations). I also agree with Rachel.m.mitchell that your use of links could be a little bit more strategic (i.e., you may not need as many for terms that aren't extremely related to the topic). While I do agree that the article is a little more scholarly than other Wikipedia articles, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. You could change a bit to try to make it a bit easier to read or accessible to a wider audience, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Under the section "Forms of emotion labor," the sentence "Of all women working, about one-half have jobs that require some form of emotional labor" may need some additional explanation. I noticed that it refers to women specifically, instead of workers in general. While you do go into the relationship of gender and emotion labor later on, I think it would be helpful to include another sentence or two here just mentioning that women are more likely to be in occupations that require emotion labor (if this is the case). Finally, I think the sentence "That is, occupations with high cognitive demands evidence wage returns with increasing emotional labor demands; whereas occupations low in cognitive demands evidence a wage "penalty" with increasing emotional labor demands" in the last section could be expanded upon a bit more. I was interested to learn more about examples of specific occupations where emotional labor is rewarded vs. occupations where it comes with a higher wage penalty. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two here explaining this or add in examples in the "Emotional labor in organizations" section. Great job! Naomi FK (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Naomi FK! I just want to thank you for reading over my contribution. I will be sure to look over the Wikipedia guidelines of whether or not I should include the year after the authors' last names in the article. Also, several Wikipedia users have already gone through my article and deleted unnecessary/repetitive links so thank you for the suggestion! I will also edit the article to make it more accessible to a wider audience that does not necessarily have a scholarly background. I actually did not write that particularly part in the last section. However, I will be sure to look it over and make sure it makes sense and edit it accordingly. Thanks again!

Morell21 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)