Mei-Lin Chang
Irena Burić
Hui Wang- 1Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, United States
- 2Department of Psychology, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia
- 3Department of Special Education and Counselling, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong SAR, China
Editorial on the Research Topic
Teachers' emotion regulation and emotional labor: Relationships with teacher motivation, well-being, and teaching effectiveness
Teaching is laborious work requiring a great deal of emotional awareness, understanding, and regulation to develop and maintain supportive relationships with students. The scholarship on teacher emotion has been flourishing in recent decades (Chen et al., 2020; Chen and Cheng, 2022), and existing literature has underscored the significance of teacher emotion in shaping teacher motivation, wellbeing, and instructional quality (Frenzel et al., 2021). However, research on teachers' emotion regulation and its related constructs, such as emotional labor, is still underdeveloped and limited in the range of cultures, contexts, and research methodologies (Wang et al., 2019). The pioneer research on teacher emotion regulation was first published in Sutton (2004), followed by a few subsequent publications around 2009–2010 (Çukur, 2009; Sutton et al., 2009; Hülsheger et al. et al., 2010; Tsouloupas et al., 2010). Since then, the field has gradually flourished in the past two decades. In a recent meta-analysis of publications regarding teacher emotion regulation, it was found that only about 88 quantitative and empirical papers exist thus far (2006–2022) that have closely examined teacher emotion regulation (Wang et al., under review). Among these empirical studies, only a few adaptive forms of emotion regulation (i.e., cognitive reappraisal) and emotional labor strategies (i.e., deep acting) have been identified for their associations with effective teaching and student outcomes [e.g., student engagement by Burić and Frenzel (2020); adoption of a need supportive and motivating style by Moè and Katz (2021)], teacher enthusiasm (e.g., Gaspard and Lauermann, 2021), and teacher wellbeing (e.g., Chang, 2013; Yin et al., 2016). Our understanding of these constructs is still inadequate regarding how regulatory processes function during various contexts of teaching and in what ways they deeply intersect with teacher motivation, wellbeing, teacher-student relationships, and teaching effectiveness.
Overview of the special issue
In seeking to develop a more systematic understanding of teacher emotion regulation and emotional labor, this Research Topic is titled: “Teachers' emotion regulation and emotional labor: Relationships with teacher motivation, well-being, and teaching effectiveness.” It was designed to spark the publication of new empirical evidence and potential linkages of the antecedents, processes, and effects of teacher emotion regulation and emotional labor. The collection of six papers contextualized our understanding of teacher emotion regulation and emotional labor by drawing studies from a diverse sample, including preservice and in-service teachers and college instructors with cultural representation from Austria, China, and the U.S., and a variety of methodologies including systematic review, and quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method approaches.
Contextual variety in emotion regulation
This collection of articles answered critical questions in addressing the contextual differences in emotion regulation: In the post-secondary education context, what do we know about university faculty and college instructors' coping and emotion regulation strategies for stress management (Salimzadeh et al.)? Does emotional labor matter for university teaching (Han et al.)? In the team-teaching context, how do team teachers co-regulate and communicate their emotions in the team-taught classroom environment (Muehlbacher et al.)? In addressing cultural and ethnic context, how do Confucian familism, emotional labor, and work-family conflict explain the variance in teachers' emotional exhaustion (Zhu et al.)? How prevalent is imposter syndrome among preservice teachers, and how are minority group membership and identity related to imposter syndrome? What is the association between imposter syndrome and teachers' emotion regulation competency (LaPalme et al.)? Finally, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, to what degree did teachers experience burnout, and how did individual (i.e., emotion regulation strategies) and contextual factors (e.g., school administrative support) intersect with different facets of teachers' emotional experiences (Chang et al.)?
Theoretical frameworks
Across these six contributions, Grandey (2000, 2015) theoretical framework of emotional labor and Gross (1998) process model of emotion regulation are the dominant theoretical frameworks. Salimzadeh et al. adopted both models to examine the existing literature regarding the prevalence and consequences of emotion regulation and emotional labor. Han et al. and Zhu et al. examined emotional labor and its antecedents and consequences aligned with Grandey's integrative model. Muehlbacher et al. and Chang et al. conducted qualitative investigations and contextualized Gross' process model of emotion regulation in team-teaching and pandemic teaching, respectively. Similarly, LaPalme et al. adopted Gross' model of emotion regulation to examine how preservice teachers' emotion regulation was related to their imposter syndrome.
Theoretical and empirical contributions
Each article provides a unique lens to help us better understand the contextual influences of teachers' emotion regulation processes. For instance, although emotional labor, especially faking and hiding emotions, was frequently reported to correspond with high job stress, burnout, and less job satisfaction, Salimzadeh et al.'s systematic review found that emotional labor may not be entirely detrimental for faculty. Specifically, conducting emotional labor allows faculty to act professionally in college classrooms and hence, provides better career development opportunities. Han et al. documented that surface acting in the university teaching context impeded teachers' teaching efficacy in instructional strategy and learning assessment. They also found that deep acting and expressing naturally felt emotions enhanced teachers' self-efficacy. Muehlbacher et al. identified how team teachers communicated and engaged in co- and shared emotion regulation such as situation modification, reappraisal, authentic display, and suppression. The collaborative relationships in a team-teaching environment afforded teachers ample opportunities to use humor, encouragement, and praise in teaching, providing teachers with workload relief and immediate emotional support. Zhu et al.'s study revealed the cultural effect of Confucian familism on teachers' use of deep and surface acting strategies and how it may play the dual role of motivator and stressor for Chinese teachers' emotional labor and wellbeing.
Moreover, Chang et al.'s study depicted how the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated teachers' stress and negative emotions and challenged effective emotion regulation in teachers. The overwhelming negative emotions associated with protocols during pandemic teaching impeded their cognitive processes for reappraisals which in turn caused burnout. Finally, in examining the emotion regulation among pre-service teachers, LaPalme et al. discovered that many pre-service teachers experience imposter syndrome and using maladaptive coping strategies may exacerbate it.
In sum, this collection of papers elaborated on the multi-faceted functions of teachers' emotion regulation, provided evidence concerning the benefits of adaptive emotion regulation on teacher wellbeing and fostered a comprehensive understanding of the roles that teacher emotion regulation and emotional labor can play in improving their motivation, wellbeing, and teaching effectiveness.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Burić, I., and Frenzel, A. C. (2020). Teacher emotional labour, instruc- tional strategies, and students' academic engagement: a multilevel analysis. Teachers Teaching 27, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2020.1740194
Chang, M. -L. (2013). Toward a theoretical model to understand teacher emotions and teacher burnout in the context of student misbehavior: appraisal, regulation and coping. Motivat. Emot. 37, 799–817. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9335-0
Chen, J., and Cheng, T. (2022). Review of research on teacher emotion during 1985–2019: a descriptive quantitative analysis of knowledge production trends. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 37, 417–438. doi: 10.1007/s10212-021-00537-1
Chen, J., Yin, H., and Frenzel, A.C. (2020). Editorial: teacher emotions matter—nature, antecedents, and effects. Front. Psychol. 11, 605389. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.605389
Çukur, C. S. (2009). The development of the Teacher Emotional Labor Scale (TELS): validity and reliability. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 9, 559–574.
Frenzel, A.C., Lia Daniels, L., and Buric, I. (2021). Teacher emotions in the classroom and their implications for students. Educ. Psychol. 56, 250–264. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1985501
Gaspard, H., and Lauermann, F. (2021). Emotionally and motivationally supportive classrooms: a state-trait analysis of lesson-and classroom-specific variation in teacher-and student-reported teacher enthusiasm and student engagement. Learn. Instruct. 75, 101494. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101494
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5, 95–110. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95
Grandey, A. A. (2015). Smiling for a wage: what emotional labor teaches us about emotion regulation. Psychol. Inquiry 26, 54–60. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2015.962444
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2, 271–299. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, W. B., Maier, G. W., et al. (2010). Emotional labor, strain, and performance: testing reciprocal relationships in a longitudinal panel study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 15, 505–521. doi: 10.1037/a0021003
Moè, A., and Katz, I. (2021). Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating teaching style. Teachers Teaching Theory Pract. 27, 370–387. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2020.1777960
Sutton, R. E. (2004). Emotional regulation goals and strategies of teachers. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 7, 379–398. doi: 10.1007/s11218-004-4229-y
Sutton, R. E., Mudrey-Camino, R., and Knight, C. C. (2009). Teachers' emotion regulation and classroom management. Theory Pract. 48, 130–137. doi: 10.1080/00405840902776418
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., and Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teachers' perceived student misbehavior and emotional exhaustion: the importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educ. Psychol. 30, 173–189. doi: 10.1080/01443410903494460
Wang, H., Hall, N. C., and Taxer, J. L. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of teachers' emotional labor: a systematic review and meta-analytic investigation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 663–698. doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09475-3
Keywords: teacher emotion, emotion regulation, emotional labor, wellbeing, teaching effectiveness
Citation: Chang M-L, Burić I and Wang H (2022) Editorial: Teachers' emotion regulation and emotional labor: Relationships with teacher motivation, well-being, and teaching effectiveness. Front. Educ. 7:1062498. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1062498
Received: 06 October 2022; Accepted: 29 November 2022;
Published: 09 December 2022.
Edited by:
Douglas F. Kauffman, Medical University of the Americas – Nevis, United StatesReviewed by:
Angelica Moè, University of Padua, ItalyCopyright © 2022 Chang, Burić and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mei-Lin Chang, mchang6@kennesaw.edu