Reports an error in "From cheery to "cheers"? Regulating emotions at work and alcohol consumption after work" by Gordon M. Sayre, Alicia A. Grandey and Nai-Wen Chi (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2020[Jun], Vol 105[6], 597-618). In the article, Figure 2 contains two errors. First, the survey timing labels are inaccurate and should read "Evening, Day t" -> "Evening, Day t" ->"Morning, Day t+1". Instead, the survey timing labels from Figure 1 were accidentally duplicated for Figure 2, such that they read "Afternoon, Day t"->"Evening, Day t"->"Afternoon, Day t+1". Second, the coefficient for Motive to Detach→Alcohol consumption should have two asterisks (p<.01), but instead has only one (p<.05). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-57614-001.) Emotional labor, or regulating emotions as part of one's work role, is needed for performance yet may come with far-reaching costs to employee health and performance. Based on ego depletion theorizing, we propose that on days employees perform more surface acting (i.e., faking positive and hiding negative emotional expressions), they will consume more alcohol later-due to reduced self-control (i.e., depletion). In 2 studies, public-facing employees completed multiple assessments per day for 2 weeks. Study 1 showed that surface acting had no direct or indirect effect on alcohol use via depletion, nor via negative mood as an alternative measure of depletion. Study 2 demonstrated that surface acting directly increased subsequent drinking only for those with high emotional demands, but not through depletion. Across both studies, daily deep acting (i.e., modifying emotions to feel positive) consistently predicted less alcohol consumption, but this did not occur through depletion. Study 2 provided evidence for an alternative, motivational shift explanation-a reduced motive to detach from work after regulating by deep acting-rather than self-control capacity. These findings contribute to debate on ego depletion theory by providing insightful field evidence, while demonstrating when emotional labor is likely to help or harm employees' health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

“从快乐到“欢呼”？调节工作情绪和下班后饮酒”：对 Sayre、Grandey 和 Chi（2020 年）的更正。

Gordon M. Sayre、Alicia A. Grandey 和 Nai-Wen Chi 在“从愉快到“欢呼”？调节工作中的情绪和下班后的饮酒量中报告错误（应用心理学杂志，2020 年[六月]，第 105 卷） [6]，597-618）。在文章中，图 2 包含两个错误。首先，调查时间标签不准确，应为“晚上，第 t 天”->“晚上，第 t”->“早上，第 t+1 天”。相反，图 1 中的调查时间标签被意外地复制到图 2 中，因此它们显示为“下午，t 天”->“晚上，t 天”->“下午，t+1 天”。其次，Motive to Detach→酒精消费的系数应该有两个星号 (p<.01)，但只有一个 (p<.05)。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录 2019-57614-001 中。）情绪劳动，或将情绪调节作为工作角色的一部分，是绩效所必需的，但可能会给员工的健康和绩效带来深远的成本。基于自我耗竭理论，我们提出，在员工表现出更多表面行为（即假装积极和隐藏消极情绪表达）的日子里，由于自控能力降低（即耗竭），他们以后会消耗更多的酒精。在 2 项研究中，面向公众的员工在 2 周内每天完成多项评估。研究 1 表明，表面行为通过消耗对酒精使用没有直接或间接影响，也没有通过消极情绪作为消耗的替代衡量标准。研究 2 表明，表面行为直接增加了那些有高情绪需求的人的后续饮酒，但不会通过消耗来增加。在这两项研究中，每天的深度表演（即调整情绪以使其感觉积极）始终如一地预测饮酒量减少，但这并不是通过消耗而发生的。研究 2 为另一种动机转变解释提供了证据——在深度行为调节后脱离工作的动机减少——而不是自我控制能力。这些发现有助于通过提供有见地的现场证据来讨论自我耗竭理论，同时证明情绪劳动何时可能有助于或损害员工的健康。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。改变情绪以感觉积极）一致预测饮酒量减少，但这并不是通过消耗而发生的。研究 2 为另一种动机转变解释提供了证据——在深度行为调节后脱离工作的动机减少——而不是自我控制能力。这些发现有助于通过提供有见地的现场证据来讨论自我耗竭理论，同时证明情绪劳动何时可能有助于或损害员工的健康。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。改变情绪以感到积极）一致预测饮酒量减少，但这并不是通过消耗而发生的。研究 2 为另一种动机转变解释提供了证据——在深度行为调节后脱离工作的动机减少——而不是自我控制能力。这些发现有助于通过提供有见地的现场证据来讨论自我耗竭理论，同时证明情绪劳动何时可能有助于或损害员工的健康。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。这些发现有助于通过提供有见地的现场证据来讨论自我耗竭理论，同时证明情绪劳动何时可能有助于或损害员工的健康。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。这些发现有助于通过提供有见地的现场证据来讨论自我耗竭理论，同时证明情绪劳动何时可能有助于或损害员工的健康。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。