Next Article in Journal
Ascertaining Restaurant Financial Sustainability by Analyzing Menu Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Influence of Social Media on Tourist Decision-Making: Insights from Cape Verde
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Emotional Contagion in the Hospitality Industry: Unraveling Its Impacts and Mitigation Strategies Through a Moderated Mediated PLS-SEM Approach

by
Ibrahim A. Elshaer
1,*,
Alaa M. S. Azazz
2,
Mansour Alyahya
1,
Abuelkassem A. A. Mohammad
3,4,
Sameh Fayyad
5,6 and
Osman Elsawy
5,7
1
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Social Studies, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
3
Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Minia University, Minia 61519, Egypt
4
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality, King Salman International University, Sharm EL Sheikh 46612, Egypt
5
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
6
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
7
Human Resource Management Department, Business College, King Khalid University, Asir-Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(1), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010046
Submission received: 5 February 2025 / Revised: 9 March 2025 / Accepted: 11 March 2025 / Published: 14 March 2025

Abstract

:
Emotional contagion is a common phenomenon among hotel employees, creating an environment of shared emotions that can influence work-related outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and psychological well-being. However, strategies to mitigate or regulate its effects in hotels remain underexplored. This quantitative study used the PLS-SEM data analysis approach to examine the influence of emotional contagion on these outcomes and explores how psychological resilience and leader–member exchange (LMX) can moderate its impact. Specifically, this study examines (1) the direct influence of emotional contagion on job satisfaction, job performance, and psychological well-being; (2) the mediating role of psychological well-being in the links between emotional contagion and both job performance and job satisfaction; and (3) the moderating roles of LMX and psychological resilience on the relationships between emotional contagion, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and job performance. Drawing upon social and emotional resource theories, this study employs a quantitative approach and uses a structured questionnaire survey administered among frontline employees in hotels in Egypt. Based on the valid responses of 792 participants, the study employed the PLS-SEM data analysis method using Smart PLS 4.0. The findings reveal that emotional contagion significantly directly impacts workplace outcomes and through psychological well-being. Furthermore, high-quality LMX and greater psychological resilience buffer the negative effects of emotional contagion, underscoring their critical roles in the workplace. The study contributes to the organizational behavior literature by highlighting the interplay between emotional and psychological factors in shaping employee performance and satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Providing exceptional customer service gives businesses a competitive advantage in the service sector. Therefore, leaders in the hospitality industry depend on frontline employees to provide excellent services that meet or even exceed customer expectations. Because frontline staff members represent the company and are essential to the employee–customer encounter, they substantially contribute to the customer experience in the hospitality sector (Johnson & Park, 2020). One of the biggest causes of stress for workers in the hospitality industry nowadays is their complex work environment. Extended and anti-social work hours, continuous client interaction, and emotional labor put frontline staff under a lot of stress. These stressful circumstances severely impact frontline staff members’ motivation and productivity (Haldorai et al., 2022).
Service personnel experience a range of emotions when engaging with customers, coworkers, and superiors (T. Gong et al., 2020). Barsade et al. (2018) explained that emotional contagion denotes a unique susceptibility to the unconscious feelings that people convey. The Affective Event Theory (AET) states that certain situations in the workplace might elicit the transmission of positive or negative feelings among coworkers. These emotions then influence their psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions (Devdutt et al., 2023). Emotional contagion related to unpleasant working conditions results in negative emotions like anger (Petitta et al., 2021). Negative emotions are therefore demanding and may be linked to poor well-being. Because it depletes psychological resources, the spread of negative emotions, such as anger or fatigue, can have negative effects and is therefore considered a job demand (Reh et al., 2021). Employees tend to absorb negative emotions they experience at work or the negative emotions they witness others experiencing. This, in turn, leads to unfavorable consequences such as burnout, emotional exhaustion, decline in communicative responsiveness, and a loss of occupational commitment (Barsade et al., 2018). This can also threaten employee psychological well-being (Verzeletti et al., 2016), decrease job performance (Reizer et al., 2019), and increase intentions to leave (Dodanwala et al., 2023). Likewise, emotional contagion is deemed a predictor variable that negatively impacts workers’ commitment to their jobs, job satisfaction, and job performance. The more emotional contagion there is, the greater the likelihood of burnout and turnover intention (Petitta et al., 2021).
Hence, hotels ought to control the occurrence of emotional contagion among frontline employees and avert its consequences. According to the Conservation of Resources theory (COR), emotional contagion is a job demand resulting in negative emotions and undesirable consequences. Thus, having sufficient resources may enable employees to buffer this type of demand. To that end, previous studies have highlighted the detrimental impacts of emotional contagion (Simillidou et al., 2020). However, limited research has explained how relationships with superiors and coworkers can lessen emotional contagion, despite emotional contagion being a common interaction phenomenon (Zhu et al., 2023). Since leadership support can help alleviate the ramifications of emotional contagion, Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) was adopted as a moderator to fill this gap. Accordingly, the current study investigates the role of LMX as a resource to buffer job demands related to emotional contagion. The leader–member exchange theory suggests that a reciprocal exchange of favors is fostered when leaders demonstrate positive actions. This exchange creates obligations for employees on various levels, including trust, control over organizational resources, competence, and consideration (Liao et al., 2019).
Back to the role of resources in buffering job demands, employees’ psychological resilience as a resource can also be used to buffer emotional contagion. From the lens of the COR theory, psychological resilience is commonly defined as the capacity to bounce back or recover from stress. Psychological resilience may help overcome the negative consequences of emotional contagion since it is widely accepted as an adaptive ability to navigate difficult conditions (e.g., resettlement and integration). In addition, resilience is considered a personality trait that helps people “bounce” back from safety-challenging experiences and prevents psychological disorders brought on by terrifying incidents (Dim, 2023). Given that previous studies did not focus on employees’ psychological resilience as a tool to buffer job demands related to emotional contagion, the current study examines its role in mitigating the relationship between emotional contagion and psychological well-being.
Given that emotional contagion is common among frontline employees, causing undesired effects on psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and employees’ performance, there is a pressing need for crafting effective strategies for regulating this phenomenon. Nonetheless, few studies have investigated this issue, indicating a notable gap in knowledge. Therefore, the current study draws on both AET and COR theory and seeks to address this gap. Recent research on emotional contagion and its influence on employee satisfaction and well-being has predominantly focused on Western and Asian contexts (Liu et al., 2019). However, studies examining this phenomenon within the Egyptian hospitality sector remain scarce, despite its distinct cultural, organizational, and managerial characteristics. Most of the existing literature is rooted in individualistic cultures, where emotional expression norms and leadership styles differ significantly from those observed in Egypt (Hofstede, 2001). Moreover, previous studies have primarily examined emotional contagion, leader–member exchange (LMX), and resilience as isolated factors rather than exploring their interactive effects (Xerri et al., 2023). To the authors’ best knowledge, the moderating role of LMX in mitigating the negative impact of emotional contagion remains underexplored, particularly in hierarchical workplace structures such as those prevalent in Egyptian hotels. Addressing these gaps could provide valuable insights into how leadership dynamics influence emotional contagion’s effects on employee satisfaction and well-being in culturally unique hospitality settings.
Accordingly, this study proposes and examines a model using psychological resilience and LMX as moderators to mitigate the negative consequences of emotional contagion experienced by employees. Therefore, the study’s objectives are threefold as follows: firstly, to examine the direct effects of emotional contagion on job satisfaction and job performance; secondly, to investigate the indirect effects of emotional contagion on job satisfaction and job performance through psychological well-being; and finally, to test the moderating effects of both LMX and psychological resilience on the links between emotional contagion, psychological well-being, and job performance and satisfaction. This study is expected to make theoretical contributions in several ways. First, it extends the AET and COR theory to the hospitality literature by illustrating how workplace affective events (AET) influence employee resource management strategies (COR). Second, it emphasizes the significance of resources such as LMX and resilience as key moderating factors that enhance employees’ ability to regulate emotional contagion. Lastly, it introduces a dual-pathway approach to well-being and job satisfaction, highlighting the importance of both affective (AET) and resource-based (COR) perspectives in understanding the impact of emotional contagion on employee outcomes. The study also makes a valuable contribution to the industry by underscoring the importance of human resource management functions in mitigating the impact of emotional contagion on well-being by cultivating a positive emotional environment. This can be achieved through leadership training and the development of emotional intelligence to enhance employee satisfaction and engagement. Additionally, implementing resilience-building initiatives, such as mindfulness and stress management programs, can promote psychological well-being and help prevent burnout. Lastly, fostering emotionally intelligent leadership and nurturing positive team dynamics can minimize emotional strain and support the growth of collaborative, high-performing teams.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Emotional Contagion

Emotions can be defined as a set of endogenous and exogenous inputs to neural systems, leading to internal and external manifestations (Oggiano, 2022). They are described as subjective sensations that people interpret intellectually and that have distinct physiological manifestations. In the meantime, emotional contagion is the transfer of one person’s emotions to another. According to Prochazkova and Kret (2017), those who have strong emotional contagion share others’ emotions and react emotionally to their experience. Hess and Fischer (2017) observed that people tend to become readily thrilled by sharing the feelings of others because emotional contagion is a purely emotional transmission mechanism that does not include cognitive processes. According to Lu and Hong (2022), emotional contagion is a human vulnerability, and individuals who become easily aroused face emotional difficulties in handling stressful situations. When employees are experiencing negative emotions, emotional contagion can cause stress and unfavorable consequences (Petitta et al., 2019). However, when emotional contagion involves transmitting positive emotions, it positively impacts employee well-being (Xerri et al., 2023). Emotional contagion theory posits that people often “catch” other people’s emotions without realizing it. According to Zablah et al. (2017), this type of primitive emotional contagion occurs when two parties (the emotion sender and the emotion receiver) synchronize their vocalizations, postures, movements, and facial expressions. The result is an emotional convergence between the two parties.

2.2. Psychological Well-Being

Psychological well-being can be defined as a global and context-free appraisal and reflection of each person’s subjective pleasure (Velarde Pierce et al., 2021). According to Ryff (2014), psychological well-being has four characteristics as follows: it is subjective and emotional, it is contextual, it may be developed or improved depending on individual endeavors, and it is moving in a positive direction. Psychological well-being also has many antecedents, including low stress levels, career path, physical health, and work environment (Ryff, 2014). Six distinct elements make up Ryff’s (1989) measure of psychological well-being as follows: self-acceptance, positive relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. Sansinenea et al. (2020) defined self-acceptance as having favorable views toward oneself and stated that it is considered a fundamental aspect of positive psychological functioning. Warm, trustworthy interpersonal relationships and intense empathy and affection are indicators of positive relationships. The ability to design or adjust situations that are appropriate for one’s psychic state is known as environmental mastery. A sense of direction, intentionality, and knowledge of one’s own purpose in life are all referred to as having a purpose (Azazz et al., 2024). The capacity to consistently advance one’s prospective competence and, consequently, one’s personal development is known as personal growth. Lastly, autonomy includes self-determination, independence, internal locus of control, individuation, and internal behavior regulation (Mustafa et al., 2023).
Organizational research has been increasingly focusing on the psychological well-being of employees for many reasons. On the one hand, ineffective psychological functioning can lead to a variety of negative social and economic outcomes, including psychological retreat, turnover, depression, and slower thinking (Nica, 2016). On the other hand, employees who experience a high degree of psychological well-being also demonstrate positive behavioral and attitudinal tendencies, which can lead to improved performance and productivity (Kersemaekers et al., 2018), organizational citizenship behavior (Huang et al., 2021), a higher level of life satisfaction (Kern et al., 2014), and a low level of psychological disengagement, and turnover (Nica, 2016).

2.3. Job Satisfaction

One of the key components maintaining organizational success is job satisfaction. That is because employees’ ability to carry out organizational duties efficiently depends on their job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is directly related to employees’ intent to leave their current positions (Hoxha et al., 2024). Job satisfaction’s importance can be understood through minimizing turnover, burnout, and absenteeism (Madigan & Kim, 2021). Experiencing negative or positive emotions can affect employees’ job satisfaction. Therefore, emotion regulation affects the formation of job satisfaction through its ability to reinterpret external events and consequently modify its effects. Therefore, it should be more common for workers who are likely to utilize affect-improving emotion regulation tactics to feel positive emotions in the workplace (Madrid, 2020).

2.4. Job Performance

Job performance is defined as an employee’s conduct and output to comply with policies, procedures, and official organizational functions (Khtatbeh et al., 2020). According to Wehrt et al. (2022), job performance can be defined as an individual’s self-controlled behaviors relevant to organizational goals. Client and employee interaction is usually necessary for job effectiveness in the service sector. This feature of the service sector has led to the belief that service personnel are an essential source for learning how clients perceive the quality of their experiences. Thus, achieving client happiness, providing high-quality service, and gaining repeat business depend on how well service employees perform (Elshaer et al., 2025a; T. Gong & Yi, 2018). Accordingly, contextual performance and behavior must be considered in addition to task performance when evaluating employee performance (Çalişkan & Köroğlu, 2022).

2.5. Psychological Resilience

Psychological resilience can be defined as the capacity to withstand adversity and recover from tiring circumstances. Chuning et al. (2024) define resilience as the effective adaptation in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or significant sources of stress such as family and relationship problems, serious health problems, workplace issues, or financial stressors. Vella and Pai (2019) originally considered psychological resilience as a personality trait. They assumed that people adapt to stressful situations differently over time and in different domains. As a result, someone with a high degree of resilience would be able to deal with difficulties in their personal lives as well as at work. Bryan et al. (2020) divided resilience into the following three categories: the capacity to resist, bounce back from, and grow from difficult situations. Considering this, psychological resilience can be defined as the capacity to withstand change and preserve higher states of well-being in the face of adversity.

2.6. Leader–Member Exchange (LMX)

According to Uhl-Bien et al. (2022), LMX measures how well both sides regard the relationship between leader and follower. This connection can be robust when it is marked by mutual respect and trust, as well as when considering the needs of the followers. The LMX may alternatively be seen as a low-quality partnership where the emphasis is on the details listed in the official job description. Lack of support and involvement are common features of low-quality relationships.
The term leader–member exchange (LMX) describes the impact a leader has in influencing the attitudes and performance of their subordinates. According to the LMX, most superiors form unique exchange connections (on a dyadic basis) with each inferior, varying in quality. According to Han et al. (2021), members or subordinates with high-quality exchange ties, also known as in-group relationships, have easier access to the leader’s support and job information, greater job autonomy, and higher job performance assessments. Conversely, subordinates or members on the lower end of the quality spectrum of this relationship, known as out-group relationships, feel more contractually bound to adhere to rules, policies, and procedures (Quratulain, 2020). Members or subordinates in this relationship group are unlikely to be driven to go above and beyond what is necessary. Numerous researchers have quantified LMX. For instance, trust, support, latitude/discretion, liking/affect, loyalty, obligation, influence, supervisor’s attention, respect, employee contribution, extra-contractual exchange, consideration, information, and communication are some of the 14 sub-dimensions of the LMX that were identified by (Mascareño et al., 2020).
Strong LMX relationships are associated with lower turnover intentions and actual employee turnover, improved organizational citizenship behaviors, greater job satisfaction, enhanced organizational commitment, and a heightened sense of justice and empowerment. Conversely, weak LMX relationships may increase role ambiguity, conflict, and the perception of organizational politics (Henderson & Jeong, 2024).

2.7. Affective Events Theory (AET) and Emotional Contagion Consequences

To illustrate the relationships between the study variables, the AET was adopted. The AET offers a comprehensive and well-organized framework that makes it easy to understand how work events affect employees’ emotions and the behaviors that follow (X. Wang & Shaheryar, 2020). The basic idea of AET posits that work-related events trigger affective reactions, which can in turn affect employees’ behavior, i.e., evaluative judgment-driven behavior, where attitude acts as a mediating factor. AET is important because it places emotional states at the center of attitude development, which significantly impacts organizational behavior (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). AET also aids our understanding of how workers’ emotional responses affect their well-being. Appreciating the principles of Affective Events Theory (AET) allows organizations to foster environments that recognize and address the emotional aspects of work. By understanding how daily events influence employee emotions, leaders can adopt strategies that encourage positive experiences, which in turn improve organizational performance. Integrating recent findings from AET research can lead to more compassionate management approaches, better employee well-being, and a more adaptable and vibrant workplace culture (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
AET demonstrates the impact of emotions on people’s behavior at work. It posits that depending on how an individual views a certain workplace event, their emotional responses to it can either positively or negatively impact their happiness and well-being (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). Thus, events at work influence employees in both positive and negative ways. Employees’ past emotional experiences, whether recent or distant, influence how they behave at work. That is, high emotional contagion associated with the ineffective regulation of emotions can result in negative feelings, such as anger or anxiety. Aggravation or prolonged exposure to these negative feelings leads to more serious problems, including poor interaction with others, behavioral and health issues, and diminished ability to recover from stressful situations (Verzeletti et al., 2016). Thus, the following hypothesis can be assumed:
H1. 
Emotional contagion negatively affects employees’ psychological well-being.
Job satisfaction is defined as an individual’s affective or emotional response to their work, stemming from their approval of their success compared with the intended results. Emotional intelligence and experience have a major impact on job satisfaction. Compared to negative emotions, good emotions can increase job satisfaction because they enable workers to complete tasks more efficiently by enhancing their cognitive, psychological, physical, and social resources (Williams et al., 2024). Kim et al. (2024) found that an inability to regulate human emotions effectively, in the form of surface acting, was negatively associated with the positive emotion of enjoyment and positively associated with the negative emotions of anxiety, anger, and frustration. On the other hand, the ability to regulate one’s emotions, in the form of deep acting, decreases the negative emotions of worry, rage, and annoyance, and it increases the positive emotion of enjoyment. Fouad et al. (2025) and Rouxel et al. (2016) have found that positive emotions correlated positively with well-being and job satisfaction and negatively with stress, depression, and burnout, while negative emotions showed the opposite results. Hence, the following can be assumed:
H2. 
Emotional contagion negatively affects job satisfaction.
K. Wang et al. (2024) argue that AET, as it strongly emphasizes performance, can explain the link between emotions and task performance. AET states that the emotional reactions of the members of an organization to external stimuli are likely to influence behavior driven by emotions and attitudes. Longitudinal studies using AET indicated that good emotions related to work or past experiences enhance task performance. On the other hand, negative emotions related to work or previous experiences are linked to weaker task performance (Laybourn et al., 2022). Prior research suggests that an employee’s performance may be directly impacted by their work emotions (Mukherjee & Sreeja, 2018). According to Banerjee and Srivastava (2019), positive emotional contagion among people can lead to positive feelings and attitudes, cooperative behavior, fewer conflicts, and high task performance. Zhou (2018) noted that when negative emotions spread in the workplace, an organization’s work performance will be reduced. It can also have a negative impact on employees’ work-related attitudes. USLU (2022) indicated that employees’ emotions significantly influence work-related attitudes, given that emotional contagion results in negative emotions. Therefore, the following can be assumed:
H3. 
Emotional contagion negatively affects job performance.

2.8. Direct and Mediating Effects of Psychological Well-Being

The foundation of self-determination theory is the notion that autonomy, relatedness, and competence are basic psychological demands of people (Ryan & Vansteenkiste, 2023). Some studies investigated the sub-factors of psychological well-being and job satisfaction. According to Chaika (2020), the specific characteristics of psychological well-being, such as autonomy and opportunity, using strengths, goal planning, and self-knowledge, might improve job satisfaction. According to N. Y. Jung and Seock (2017), satisfaction is strongly associated with self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and life purpose. Bansal et al. (2021) discovered that one facet of psychological well-being, i.e., meaning in life, had the greatest positive impact on employee job satisfaction. Terry (2022) found that high psychological well-being was associated with increased autonomy and job satisfaction. On the other hand, when psychological needs are not met, people may experience feelings of inefficacy regarding their functioning and abilities (competence frustration), social denial, isolation, exclusion (relatedness frustration), and control by internal or external demands (autonomy frustration) (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Hence, the following can be deduced:
H4. 
Psychological well-being positively affects job satisfaction.
According to Jaiswal and Dyaram (2020), well-being is the completely positive state of an individual with respect to their subjective cognitive and affective judgment of life. It captures fundamental aspects of human functioning, including feeling competent, forming positive connections, and living a life that has a meaning and purpose. Existing empirical evidence shows that workers who report high levels of well-being perform well at their job (Kalliath et al., 2017). For example, Nielsen et al. (2017) discovered that high levels of well-being considerably boost organizational and job performance. Consequently, the following can be proposed:
H5. 
Psychological well-being positively affects job performance.
As previously stated, emotional contagion is the automatic tendency to replicate the emotions of individuals in close proximity. Because it amplifies emotions, it can influence employees’ emotions and the consequent outcomes. Consequently, emotional contagion negatively affects job satisfaction, employee performance, and psychological well-being. AET has proven extremely valuable in providing a strong theoretical rationale for the examination of intervening and mediating mechanisms in the link between dispositional and contextual factors and work behaviors in the organizational setting (Elshaer et al., 2025b; Greenidge et al., 2014).
Psychological well-being is a multifaceted concept encompassing various emotional, affective, and attitudinal characteristics that capture individuals’ total mental health in diverse circumstances and assess overall psychological functioning (Mohan & Lone, 2022). This notion has covered a wide cross-section of indicators and variables, including job satisfaction (an attitudinal form of psychological well-being and work-related well-being), work-related depression and anxiety, as well as emotional burnout and exhaustion (Kidger et al., 2016). According to the AET paradigm, an employee’s psychological well-being or mental health can be viewed as a major mediating component in the interaction between dispositional characteristics and work behaviors (e.g., job performance). The AET also indicates that affective, emotional, and attitudinal aspects play a crucial role in influencing employee behavior at work. Psychological well-being, including emotional and attitudinal dimensions, can either encourage or impede positive behavioral outcomes at work (Agyeiwaah et al., 2022). This lays the foundation for the following hypotheses:
H6. 
Psychological well-being mediates the nexus between emotional contagion and job satisfaction.
H7. 
Psychological well-being mediates the nexus between emotional contagion and employee performance.

2.9. Moderating Roles of Psychological Resilience and LMX

According to the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, people seek to obtain, preserve, and protect resources that they value. Stressful events at work that can exhaust employee resources like experiencing negative emotions due to emotional contagion, have the potential to destroy or threaten these resources, and thereby people attempt to reduce the likelihood of resource loss (Karatepe et al., 2021). The theory also posits that people have an incentive to protect their resources and that stressful reactions like anxiety, despair, and even physical illness can result from the loss of resources or from the possibility of losing them. According to the COR hypothesis, people will try to manage their stress by looking for more resources, including social support in the form of LMX, and by addressing problems via psychological resilience. Research has indicated that having personal resources can assist people in managing stressful and resource-depleting situations more effectively (Chen & Eyoun, 2021).
Based on the COR hypothesis, Guan et al. (2022) reported that resilience serves as a protective mechanism for managing stressful situations. A defensive system that kicks in when faced with unfavorable stressors, psychological resilience has been repeatedly associated with psychological well-being and a lower incidence of mental disease (Aguiar-Quintana et al., 2021). The literature has extensively demonstrated a lower likelihood of mental diseases for individuals with high psychological resilience (e.g., Killgore et al., 2020). Compared to those with low psychological resilience, individuals who possess high psychological resilience exhibit a variety of intrapersonal and interpersonal traits, such as greater flexibility and the capacity to employ more appropriate coping techniques (Song et al., 2021).
Better mental and psychological outcomes were found to be associated with resilient coping strategies, social support, and adaptive coping practices (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Adaptive coping skills, resilient coping strategies, and social support were also found to be linked with better mental and psychological outcomes. Anxiety resulting from environmental stress has also been demonstrated to be lessened by social support. According to Ruggieri et al. (2021), being well-adjusted, reaching one’s potential, feeling control over one’s life, and making important relationships are all considered indicators of a person’s state of mind and job satisfaction. Gloria and Steinhardt (2016) examined the moderating effect of psychological capital and discovered that people with strong psychological resilience are less likely to experience symptoms of anxiety and depression and are more resilient to stress. In the same vein, research has shown that psychological resilience mitigates the negative effects of stress on anxiety and depression in individuals (Song et al., 2021). Therefore, this study posits that the psychological resilience of employees may serve as a safeguard against the deleterious effects of stress brought on by emotional contagion at an individual level and that psychological resilience can help preserve mental health in the face of emotional stressors. Consequently, we postulate the following:
H8. 
Psychological resilience moderates the association between emotional contagion and psychological well-being.
According to the central assumption of the COR theory, employees work hard to accumulate, maintain, and preserve resources that they value. It is hypothesized that those with fewer resources feel stressed and are more likely to lose resources in the future (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Prior research has positioned leader behavior within the COR framework as a resource (Bormann & Diebig, 2021). It is believed that followers could view their leader’s actions as a continuous source of guidance. Because a strong LMX is linked to providing followers with assistance when needed, LMX quality may thus be seen as a resource (Liang et al., 2022). According to Lee et al. (2019), there is evidence that followers may benefit from high-quality LMX since it is linked to both intense information sharing and high levels of social support from the leader. According to Marieta et al. (2020), having access to significant additional resources from leaders, such as training, autonomy, or feedback, is also associated with a strong LMX and results in performance enhancement. When followers are allowed to use both their leader’s and their own resources, they are better equipped to handle stressful situations (Liang et al., 2022). This idea aligns with the core tenet of the COR theory that people may lessen their stress and strain by having access to resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018).
The LMX hypothesis states that when leaders exhibit good actions, it can lead to a favor exchange that makes employees feel indebted to them. Employees feel obligated on a few levels because of this favor exchange, including trust, control over organizational resources, competence, and consideration (Li et al., 2021). According to prior studies, a good employee–leader connection can benefit workers’ motivation for their jobs. Several possible benefits of excellent connections between workers and managers have also been studied in the past, such as increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, supervisor satisfaction, and promotion frequency (Vinh et al., 2022). The study conducted by Wilson et al. (2020) revealed a noteworthy correlation between elevated levels of perceived social support and elevated levels of job satisfaction and performance. Accordingly, the following can be assumed:
H9a. 
LMX moderates the association between emotional contagion and job satisfaction.
H9b. 
LMX moderates the association between emotional contagion and job performance.
Based on the above literature and hypotheses, this study posits a conceptual model (Figure 1) that graphically depicts the postulated assumptions that were made for the investigation.

3. Research Methods

This study used a quantitative research approach to explore the research problem and accomplish the research objectives. This approach was selected due to its ability to provide measurable, objective, and generalizable understandings of the investigated relationships. A web-based structured survey was designed to collect the necessary data. The gathered data were accordingly analyzed with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Squares (PLS), a vigorous statistical technique specifically suited for complex interrelationship models.

3.1. Instrument and Measures

All items used to measure the study variables were adapted from prior studies. A 6-item scale was employed to assess emotional contagion (EC), originally developed by Mehrabian and Epstein’s (1972), and later adapted by Petitta and Naughton (2015) and H. S. Jung and Yoon (2019) in their study on hotel employees. Employees’ psychological well-being (PW) was measured on a 10-item scale, created by Pradhan and Hati (2022). To gauge job performance (JP), a 5-item scale from Babin and Boles (1998) was used. Previous studies have extensively used this scale (Karatepe et al., 2006; Verma et al., 2024). A 4-item scale was adapted from Autry and Daugherty (2003) to gauge job satisfaction (JS). Furthermore, the psychological resilience (PR) variable was scaled using 10 items taken from Haldorai et al. (2023). Finally, 5 items were adopted from Borchgrevink and Boster (1997) to gauge the leader–member exchange (LMX). H. S. Jung and Yoon (2019) also relied on these items. Five-Likert scales were used to estimate all questions (where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) except the demographic-related questions. Additionally, the survey’s validity was ensured, as the questionnaire form underwent a review process performed by a total of 11 academics and 12 business professionals. Some minor amendments were made, but the survey’s essence remained unchanged throughout this process.

3.2. Participants and Procedures

The study used a convenience sampling technique to recruit participants and collect data from frontline hotel employees in highly rated hotels in major tourist destinations in Egypt, i.e., Sharm El-Sheikh. The questionnaire was voluntary for participants to complete, and all gathered answers and personal data remained strictly confidential. The study adopted a web-based survey, and the questionnaire form was designed using Microsoft Forms to facilitate the data collection from the respondents. The survey link was sent to the hotel managers and/or HR managers in the targeted hotels who then shared it with frontline employees. The data were collected from May to August 2024. A total of 813 employees completed the survey, 781 replies were deemed valid, and 32 were excluded for being incomplete or inaccurate. The study sample included 567 males (72.6%) and 214 females (27.4%). The age range of those surveyed was from 18 to 60 years. Furthermore, a total of 390 respondents (49.9%) had a middle school degree, followed by 267 participants (34.2%) with a bachelor’s degree. As for marital status, 446 (57.1%) were married, and 320 (41.0%) respondents were single. Also, a total of 313 (40.1%) employees have had more than 10 years of experience, followed by 176 (22.5%) who had from 2 to 5 years of experience (Table 1 shows the respondents’ demographics).

3.3. Data Analysis

The hypotheses were tested by performing the PLS-SEM using Smart PLS V3.0, while the descriptive analysis was conducted using SPSS 22.0. The PLS was deemed suitable because the study aims to forecast one or more variables rather than validate an existing theoretical framework. Furthermore, the PLS method enables the testing of more complicated models, with fewer data constraints and a wide range of sample sizes. This approach undergoes two phases as follows: assessing the outer and inner models (Hair et al., 2017). Further details regarding the data analysis are discussed in the results section.

4. Results

4.1. Test for Common Method Bias (CMB) and Normality

According to Harman’s single factor, CMB exists when the variance of a single factor exceeds 50%. The findings indicated that a single factor explained 35.822% of the variance. Therefore, CMB was not an issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The skewness and kurtosis values were also analyzed in this study to investigate the data’s normality. The absolute skewness and kurtosis values for every item were less than the recommended thresholds of 2.1 and 7.1 (Table 2) (Curran et al., 1996), suggesting that non-normality was also not an issue.

4.2. Reliability and Construct Validity

Hair et al. (2019) declared that certain criteria can be used to assess the convergent validity [CV] of the outer model in PLS-SEM, including the following: loadings [λ], coefficient alpha [a], and construct reliability [CR]. The instructed threshold for these are ≥0.70, and the average variance extracted [AVE] needs to be at ≥0.50. The measuring model, as exhibited in Table 2, fulfills all the requirements of a sufficient CV, which supports the reliability of the internal model, which means the consistency of the comeback responses to the items affiliated with the same factor. Additionally, Fornell and Larcker (1981) explained that to achieve discriminant validity (DV), the AVE of every variable needs to be higher than the “squared inter-construction correlations”. Table 3 confirms that each [AVE] value exceeds the corresponding squared inter-construction correlations, thus validating the DV (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Moreover, it is suggested that the HTMT test is suitable for validating the DV. Table 4 shows that the DV is fit since HTMTs are <0.90 (Gold et al., 2001).

4.3. Structural Model and Testing Hypotheses

VIF, R2, Q2, and the beta coefficients [β] were tested to validate the structural model (Hair et al., 2019). To eliminate the possibility of multicollinearity between the structures, the items’ VIFs ought to be <5.0, R2 must adhere to the academic and study-related norms and situations, β has to be significant, and the Q2 results are required to be >0.0 (Hair et al., 2019).
Table 2 depicts that all VIFs fell below the cut-off number, varying between 1.685 and 4.878, indicating no multicollinearity issue. Regarding R2, psychological well-being’s R2 is 0.278, which signifies that the remaining constructs in the structural model explained 27.8% of the variation in this variable. Likewise, the R2 of job performance was 0.532 and the R2 of job satisfaction was 0.442, meeting the acceptable threshold of 0.10 or higher. Q2 also was over the cut-off level of 0.0. Furthermore, the values of β were significant at 0.01. Furthermore, the GoF of the models that operate the PLS-SEM technique can be evaluated through the following equation (Tenenhaus et al., 2005):
GoF = A V E a v y × R 2 a v y
The GoF is low, medium, and high at 0.1, 0.25, and 0.36, respectively. The GoF for our model is high, at 0.557.
Following the evidence of the validity of the measurement and structural model benchmarks, we tested our hypotheses and report the results in Table 5 and Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrate that the EC negatively affected PW (β = −0.278; t = 8.138; p < 0.000), JS (β = −0.143; t = 4.351; p < 0.000), and JP (β = −0.141; t = 4.168; p < 0.000), supporting H1, H2, and H3. Similarly, PW positively impacted JS (β = 0.380; t = 7.105; p < 0.000) and JP (β = 0.372; t = 6.487; p < 0.000), confirming H4 and H5. In addition, PW mediates the link between EC and JS (β = −0.106; t = 3.613; p < 0.000) and the link between EC and JP (β = −0.104, t = 5.648, p < 0.001), proving H6 and H7.
Table 5 and Figure 3 show that PR, as a moderator, dampens the negative influence of EC on PW (β = 0.212; p = 0.000; t = 5.543), confirming H8. Similarly, according to Table 5 and Figure 4 and Figure 5, LMX, as a moderator, dampens the negative influence of EC on JS (β = 0.102; p = 0.002; t = 3.119) and EC on JP (β = 0.222; t = 6.477; p = 0.000), supporting H9a and H9b.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings and Theoretical Contributions

The results add to the expanding literature on emotion regulation in the workplace by illustrating the impact of emotional contagion on employees in service-oriented industries like hotels. In these high-interaction environments, employees are in constant contact with customers and colleagues, making them highly susceptible to transmitting emotions. Emotional contagion, which refers to the automatic transfer of feelings from one person to another (H. S. Jung & Yoon, 2019), plays a significant role in shaping employees’ emotional states, attitudes, and job performance. In the hotel work environment, employees are responsible for managing guest experiences and ensuring service quality. The emotional climate created by peers, supervisors, and customers can have a profound effect on their mood and overall job satisfaction. Positive emotional contagion—manifested through actions like enthusiasm, kindness, and encouragement from managers and coworkers—can boost employee engagement, job satisfaction, and general well-being (Ustrov et al., 2016). Employees who regularly experience positive emotional exchanges tend to feel more valued, supported, and emotionally content in their roles, leading to stronger dedication to service excellence.
The hospitality industry’s unique nature exposes employees to different stressors due to changing customer demands, anti-social work hours, continuous interaction with guests, and emotional labor. Therefore, these stressful circumstances severely impact frontline staff members’ morale and productivity (Haldorai et al., 2022). Given that emotional contagion is inevitable in the hospitality domain, the current study aimed to firstly test the effects of emotional contagion on both employees’ satisfaction and performance via psychological well-being; and to secondly test the ability of the two proposed strategies, i.e., LMX and psychological resilience, to regulate the effect of emotional contagion on psychological well-being, employee satisfaction, and performance. Consequently, the AET and COR theory were adopted.
The AET was adopted as it offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how work events affect employees’ emotions and, eventually, their behaviors in the workplace (X. Wang & Shaheryar, 2020). The current study revealed that emotional contagion negatively affects psychological well-being (β = −0.278, p ≤ 0.000), meaning that higher emotional contagion results in the projection of negative emotions that threaten employees’ well-being. This result coincides with that of Xerri et al. (2023). To expand on this, emotional contagion is considered a source of stress resulting from employees’ ineffective regulation of their emotions. Consequently, it may lead to negative feelings in the form of anger or anxiety, hence negatively affecting well-being (Verzeletti et al., 2016). Continuing from that, the current study also revealed that emotional contagion negatively affects both employees’ job satisfaction (β = −0.143, p ≤ 0.000) and job performance (β = −0.141, p ≤ 0.000). These results agree with those of Liu et al. (2019), who confirmed the negative effect of emotional contagion on employee performance; and those of Mazzuca et al. (2019), who confirmed the negative effect of emotional contagion on employee satisfaction. The AET continues to illustrate the negative effect of emotional contagion on employees’ performance and job satisfaction. Positive emotions could increase job satisfaction because they enable workers to complete tasks more efficiently by enhancing their cognitive, psychological, physical, and social resources. However, negative emotions, resulting from lower levels of regulation and caused by emotional contagion, lead to job dissatisfaction (Williams et al., 2024). In addition, AET states that the emotional reactions of members of an organization to external stimuli are likely to influence the behavior or performance driven by emotions and attitudes. Positive emotions related to work or past experiences enhance task performance; however, negative emotions related to work or previous experiences are linked to inadequate task performance. Since emotional contagion projects negative emotions that shape employees’ attitudes and performance, it can be concluded that emotional contagion negatively affects employee performance (Banerjee & Srivastava, 2019).
Conversely, our study revealed that psychological well-being had a positive effect on both employee satisfaction (β = 0.380, p ≤ 0.000) and performance (β = 0.372, p ≤ 0.000). According to Ha and Lee (2022), employees’ psychological well-being positively affects their attitude toward learning and, consequently, their performance. Similarly, Carvalho et al. (2018) argued that a lack of organizational improvements for employee mental health might lead to stress and decreased productivity. Additionally, well-being could be explained by psychological needs, including autonomy, competence, and relationship formation. These needs relate to the satisfaction concept. Consequently, psychological well-being can amplify employee satisfaction.
Finally, the COR explains the moderating roles of LMX and psychological resilience in regulating the negative effect of emotional contagion. This theory assumes that employees always search for new resources or preserve their current valuable resources. Experiencing negative emotional contagion leads to undesired consequences. Supporting employees with additional resources helps buffer these negative effects. LMX means that leaders exhibit good behavior, like supporting followers, which may be considered good resources preventing the occurrence of negative emotions. Our study revealed that having sufficient LMX alleviates the effect of emotional contagion on job satisfaction (β = 0.102, p ≤ 0.000) and performance (β = 0.222, p ≤ 0.000). Moreover, psychological resilience is considered a resource that helps individuals manage stressful situations, consequently lowering mental health (Z. Gong et al., 2021). The moderating effect of psychological resilience between emotional contagion and psychological well-being was confirmed (β = 0.212, p ≤ 0.000).

5.2. Practical Implications

Based on theoretical and empirical investigations, this study provides the subsequent managerial implications that enable hotels to regulate emotional contagion among frontline employees and enhance their well-being, job performance, and job satisfaction.
Emotional contagion is an inevitable phenomenon among hotel frontline employees, given the fact that hotels are emotion-intensive workplaces, influencing their psychological well-being, job performance, and job satisfaction. Thus, hotel managers ought to develop effective strategies to regulate this phenomenon and mitigate its negative consequences. The first step would be to raise awareness among frontline employees and managers about the phenomenon of emotional contagion, its regulation techniques, and its impact on workplace outcomes. This includes training programs and workshops specifically designed for hotel employees to equip them with the skills necessary to recognize and manage the spread of negative emotions, particularly in high-pressure environments such as front desks, housekeeping, and food and beverage outlets. Such programs can help create an emotionally stable and supportive work environment that maintains employees’ well-being and supports their job performance and satisfaction.
Supporting the psychological well-being of hotel employees is crucial for boosting their job performance and satisfaction. In this context, hotels can allow employees access to assistance programs, including wellness initiatives and mental health resources tailored to the hotel industry. For example, hotels can offer flexible scheduling or mental health breaks during long shifts to help employees manage work stress. Promoting a positive emotional climate is also important. The recognition of employees’ efforts through reward programs, organizing team-building activities, and fostering a culture of support can reduce the dissemination of negative emotions and create a workplace that promotes emotional stability and employee psychological well-being.
The findings of this study underscore the crucial role of LMX in averting the unfavorable consequences of emotional contagion. Accordingly, hotel managers, heads of departments, and supervisors play a key role in mitigating the adverse effects of emotional contagion through fostering high-quality leader–member exchange (LMX) rapport. To that end, management training programs should focus on developing trust, mutual respect, and open communication with employees, particularly with employees in frontline positions. Strong LMX relationships can provide hotel staff with emotional support and a sense of security, helping them maintain composure and productivity in guest-contacting roles.
In the same vein, hotel leadership development programs should include emotional intelligence training and focus on managing emotional dynamics in high-stress work environments. Hotel managers, middle managers, and supervisors should be trained to set a positive emotional tone for their teams, enabling them to counteract the spread of negative emotions, especially in guest-facing encounters. Also, regular assessments of the emotional climate, employee well-being, and LMX quality are critical. This can be conducted through surveys or one-on-one feedback sessions. Such tools enable the early detection of any potential issues and promote effective action to mitigate the effects of emotional contagion.
Additionally, our results reveal that employees’ psychological resilience is an equally important strategy for regulating emotional contagion and alleviating its undesired consequences. Therefore, hotel managers can capitalize on the psychological resilience of coworkers to control the occurrence of emotional contagions. This can be achieved through resilience-building programs tailored to the hotel industry’s fast-paced and demanding nature, such as stress management workshops, mindfulness sessions, or role-specific emotional intelligence training. This can help employees better cope with the emotional challenges of their roles.
Finally, emotional intelligence and psychological resilience should be among the key competencies of any candidates in frontline positions at a hotel. Human resources officers and the heads of departments can ensure that during the selection process, by using techniques such as situation questions or emotional intelligence tests. Hotels should also prioritize interventions for high-stress roles, such as receptionists, housekeeping staff, and restaurant servers, who are often exposed to emotionally charged situations. Providing targeted support and training for these roles ensures employees are well-equipped to manage emotional challenges, ultimately improving guest experience and operational efficiency.

5.3. Conclusions

This paper strived to explore the mediating effect of psychological well-being (PW) between emotional contagion (EC) and job satisfaction (JS) and emotional contagion (EC) and job performance (JP), as well as the moderating effect of the leader–member exchange (LMX) on the EC-JS and EC-JP links and the moderating effect of PR on the EC-PW link. By using PLS-SEM, the data collected from frontline hotel employees in highly rated hotels in major tourist destinations in Egypt, i.e., Sharm El-Sheikh, were analyzed. The study results display that EC negatively affects PW and JP. Similarly, PW positively impacts JS and JP. In addition, PW mediates the link between EC→ JS and EC→JP. Regarding the moderating effect, PR dampens the negative influence of EC on PW, and the LMX also dampens the negative influence of EC on JS and EC on JP. Based on these findings, the study has made a theoretical contribution by utilizing the AET, and the COR, LMX, and emotional contagion theories found in the literature on the hospitality industry’s organizational climate. Additionally, the study offers practical applications to assist hotel managers in addressing EC and its adverse impact on employee well-being and ways to use the LMX PR to mitigate the negative impact of EC on JP, JS, and PW.

5.4. Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study offers valuable insights into the regulation of emotional contagion among hotel frontline employees, particularly within the hotel industry in Egypt. However, there are some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish robust causal relationships between variables. Thus, future research could adopt longitudinal or experimental designs to better examine the dynamic nature of emotional contagion and its effects over a prolonged period. Second, the study mainly depended on a self-reported questionnaire form which may have caused common method bias. Hence, future studies could avoid that by incorporating multi-source data, such as supervisor evaluations or customer feedback. Third, the focus of the study was on frontline hotel employees in Egypt, which limits the generalizability of the findings to similar cultural or organizational contexts. Future research could replicate our model in different hotel departments or in multiple regions to enhance external validity. Lastly, future studies can examine other potential unexplored moderators, such as organizational culture, team dynamics, individual differences like emotional intelligence, and new technologies and their impact on emotional contagion among frontline employees. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that mitigate the negative effects of emotional contagion among frontline employees in hotel settings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A.E., S.F. and A.A.A.M.; methodology, I.A.E., S.F.; software, S.F., I.A.E.; validation, S.F., A.M.S.A. and O.E.; formal analysis, S.F.; investigation, A.M.S.A., and O.E.; resources, O.E. and S.F.; data curation, S.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A., A.A.A.M., and O.E.; writing—review and editing, I.A.E., S.F., A.A.A.M., O.E. and M.A.; visualization, A.M.S.A. and O.E.; supervision, I.A.E., S.F.; project administration, I.A.E.; funding acquisition, I.A.E. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Project No. KFU250505].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the scientific research ethical committee, King Faisal University (KFU-REC-2024-APR-ETHICS1090; 15 April 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aguiar-Quintana, T., Nguyen, T. H. H., Araujo-Cabrera, Y., & Sanabria-Díaz, J. M. (2021). Do job insecurity, anxiety and depression caused by the COVID-19 pandemic influence hotel employees’ self-rated task performance? The moderating role of employee resilience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Agyeiwaah, E., Dayour, F., & Zhou, Y. (2022). How does employee commitment impact customers’ attitudinal loyalty? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 5(2), 350–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dorris, A. D. (2017). Emotions in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Autry, C. W., & Daugherty, P. J. (2003). Warehouse operations employees: Linking person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and coping responses. Journal of Business Logistics, 24(1), 171–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Azazz, A. M. S., Elshaer, I. A., Alyahya, M., Abdulaziz, T. A., Elwardany, W. M., & Fayyad, S. (2024). Amplifying unheard voices or fueling conflict? Exploring the impact of leader narcissism and workplace bullying in the tourism industry. Administrative Sciences, 14(12), 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Banerjee, P., & Srivastava, M. (2019). A review of emotional contagion: Research propositions. Journal of Management Research, 19(4), 250–266. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bansal, D. D., Gulati, P., & Pathak, D. V. N. (2021). Effect of job satisfaction on psychological well being and perceived stress among government and private employee. Defence Life Science Journal, 6(4), 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barsade, S. G., Coutifaris, C. G. V., & Pillemer, J. (2018). Emotional contagion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Borchgrevink, C. P., & Boster, F. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange development: A hospitality antecedent investigation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(3), 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bormann, K. C., & Diebig, M. (2021). Following an uneven lead: Trickle-down effects of differentiated transformational leadership. Journal of Management, 47(8), 2105–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bryan, J., Williams, J. M., & Griffin, D. (2020). Fostering educational resilience and opportunities in urban schools through equity-focused school–family–community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 23(1_part_2), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carvalho, V. S., Chambel, M. J., Neto, M., & Lopes, S. (2018). Does work-family conflict mediate the associations of job characteristics with employees’ mental health among men and women? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chaika, G. (2020). Psychological characteristics influencing personal autonomy as a factor of psychological well-being. Psychological Journal, 6(1), 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, H., & Eyoun, K. (2021). Do mindfulness and perceived organizational support work? Fear of COVID-19 on restaurant frontline employees’ job insecurity and emotional exhaustion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chuning, A. E., Durham, M. R., Killgore, W. D. S., & Smith, R. (2024). Psychological resilience and hardiness as protective factors in the relationship between depression/anxiety and well-being: Exploratory and confirmatory evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 225, 112664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Çalişkan, A., & Köroğlu, E. Ö. (2022). Job performance, task performance, contextual performance: Development and validation of a new scale. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 180–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Devdutt, J., Sudhir, P., & Mehrotra, S. (2023). Development and validation of the workplace affective events survey. Cureus, 15(9), e46236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dim, M. H. (2023). Efficacy of the online skills-based psychological intervention for the enhancement of resilience and mental health well-being among conflict-affected displaced Myanmar people in Thailand: A mixed method study [Master’s thesis, Assumption University of Thailand]. Available online: https://repository.au.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e3c7872d-39c5-477a-9258-5c36e89270b5/content (accessed on 19 January 2024).
  21. Dodanwala, T. C., Santoso, D. S., & Yukongdi, V. (2023). Examining work role stressors, job satisfaction, job stress, and turnover intention of Sri Lanka’s construction industry. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(15), 2583–2592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., Mansour, M. A., & Fayyad, S. (2025a). Perceived greenwashing and employee non-green behavior: The roles of prevention-focused green crafting and work alienation. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2449592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., Zain, M. E. A., Fayyad, S., ElShaaer, N. I., & Mahmoud, S. W. (2025b). The dark side of the hospitality industry: Workplace Bullying and employee well-being with feedback avoidance as a mediator and psychological safety as a moderator. Healthcare, 13(3), 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fouad, A. M., Abdullah Khreis, S. H., Fayyad, S., & Fathy, E. A. (2025). The dynamics of coworker envy in the green innovation landscape: Mediating and moderating effects on employee environmental commitment and non-green behavior in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gloria, C. T., & Steinhardt, M. A. (2016). Relationships among positive emotions, coping, resilience and mental health. Stress and Health, 32(2), 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gong, T., Park, J., & Hyun, H. (2020). Customer response toward employees’ emotional labor in service industry settings. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gong, T., & Yi, Y. (2018). The effect of service quality on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and happiness in five Asian countries. Psychology & Marketing, 35(6), 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gong, Z., Li, C., Jiao, X., & Qu, Q. (2021). Does resilience help in reducing burnout symptoms among chinese students? A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 707792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Greenidge, D., Devonish, D., & Alleyne, P. (2014). The Relationship between ability-based emotional intelligence and contextual performance and counterproductive work behaviors: A test of the mediating effects of job satisfaction. Human Performance, 27(3), 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guan, X., Gong, J., & Huan, T.-C. (2022). Trick or treat! How to reduce co-destruction behavior in tourism workplace based on conservation of resources theory? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ha, J.-C., & Lee, J.-W. (2022). Promoting psychological well-being at workplace through protean career attitude: Dual mediating effect of career satisfaction and career commitment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Haldorai, K., Kim, W. G., Agmapisarn, C., & Li, J. (2023). Fear of COVID-19 and employee mental health in quarantine hotels: The role of self-compassion and psychological resilience at work. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 111, 103491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Haldorai, K., Kim, W. G., & Phetvaroon, K. (2022). Beyond the bend: The curvilinear effect of challenge stressors on work attitudes and behaviors. Tourism Management, 90, 104482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Han, J. H., Liao, H., Han, J., & Li, A. N. (2021). When leader–member exchange differentiation improves work group functioning: The combined roles of differentiation bases and reward interdependence. Personnel Psychology, 74(1), 109–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Henderson, A. A., & Jeong, S. S. (2024). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and work performance: An application of self-determination theory in the work context. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(3), 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hess, U., & Fischer, A. (2017). The role of emotional mimicry in intergroup relations. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoxha, G., Simeli, I., Theocharis, D., Vasileiou, A., & Tsekouropoulos, G. (2024). sustainable healthcare quality and job satisfaction through organizational culture: Approaches and outcomes. Sustainability, 16(9), 3603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huang, N., Qiu, S., Yang, S., & Deng, R. (2021). Ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediation of trust and psychological well-being. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jaiswal, A., & Dyaram, L. (2020). Perceived diversity and employee well-being: Mediating role of inclusion. Personnel Review, 49(5), 1121–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Johnson, K. R., & Park, S. (2020). Mindfulness training for tourism and hospitality frontline employees. Industrial and Commercial Training, 52(4), 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2019). Emotional contagion and collective commitment among leaders and team members in deluxe hotel. Service Business, 13(4), 737–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jung, N. Y., & Seock, Y.-K. (2017). Effect of service recovery on customers’ perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth intentions on online shopping websites. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kalliath, P., Kalliath, T., & Chan, C. (2017). Work–family conflict, family satisfaction and employee well-being: A comparative study of Australian and Indian social workers. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 366–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Karatepe, O. M., Rezapouraghdam, H., & Hassannia, R. (2021). Sense of calling, emotional exhaustion and their effects on hotel employees’ green and non-green work outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(10), 3705–3728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karatepe, O. M., Uludag, O., Menevis, I., Hadzimehmedagic, L., & Baddar, L. (2006). The effects of selected individual characteristics on frontline employee performance and job satisfaction. Tourism Management, 27(4), 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kern, M. L., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaceted approach: Associations with physical health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 5(6), 500–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kersemaekers, W., Rupprecht, S., Wittmann, M., Tamdjidi, C., Falke, P., Donders, R., Speckens, A., & Kohls, N. (2018). A workplace mindfulness intervention may be associated with improved psychological well-being and productivity. A preliminary field study in a company setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Khtatbeh, M. M., Mahomed, A. S. B., Rahman, S. bin A., & Mohamed, R. (2020). The mediating role of procedural justice on the relationship between job analysis and employee performance in Jordan Industrial Estates. Heliyon, 6(10), e04973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kidger, J., Brockman, R., Tilling, K., Campbell, R., Ford, T., Araya, R., King, M., & Gunnell, D. (2016). Teachers’ wellbeing and depressive symptoms, and associated risk factors: A large cross sectional study in English secondary schools. Journal of Affective Disorders, 192, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Killgore, W. D. S., Taylor, E. C., Cloonan, S. A., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Psychological resilience during the COVID-19 lockdown. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, J. H., Chun, J., Kim, J., Ju, H.-J., Kim, B. J., Jeong, J., & Lee, D. H. (2024). Emotion regulation from a virtue perspective. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Laybourn, S., Frenzel, A. C., Constant, M., & Liesefeld, H. R. (2022). Unintended emotions in the laboratory: Emotions incidentally induced by a standard visual working memory task relate to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(7), 1591–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lee, A., Thomas, G., Martin, R., & Guillaume, Y. (2019). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) ambivalence and task performance: The cross-domain buffering role of social support. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1927–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, H., Li, C., & Wang, Z. (2021). An agent-based model for exploring the impacts of reciprocal trust on knowledge transfer within an organization. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(8), 1486–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liang, Y., Liu, Y., Park, Y., & Wang, L. (2022). Treat me better, but is it really better? Applying a resource perspective to understanding leader–member exchange (LMX), LMX differentiation, and work stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(2), 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liao, Z., Liu, W., Li, X., & Song, Z. (2019). Give and take: An episodic perspective on leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 34–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, X.-Y., Chi, N.-W., & Gremler, D. D. (2019). Emotion cycles in services: Emotional contagion and emotional labor effects. Journal of Service Research, 22(3), 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lu, D., & Hong, D. (2022). Emotional contagion: Research on the Influencing factors of social media users’ negative emotional communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 931835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021). Towards an understanding of teacher attrition: A meta-analysis of burnout, job satisfaction, and teachers’ intentions to quit. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Madrid, H. P. (2020). Emotion regulation, positive affect, and promotive voice behavior at work. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Marieta, D. P., Maryam, W., & R, B. J. (2020). The role of emotional intelligence and autonomy in transformational leadership: A leader member exchange perspective. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mascareño, J., Rietzschel, E., & Wisse, B. (2020). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and innovation: A test of competing hypotheses. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(3), 495–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mazzuca, S., Kafetsios, K., Livi, S., & Presaghi, F. (2019). Emotion regulation and satisfaction in long-term marital relationships: The role of emotional contagion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2880–2895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Mohan, H., & Lone, Z. A. (2022). Incorporating psychological well-being as a policy in multifaceted corporate culture. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 9392–9403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mukherjee, U., & Sreeja, T. (2018). Impact of leader emotional displays and emotional contagion at work in India: An in class experiential activity. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 67, 73. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mustafa, M. J., Hughes, M., & Ramos, H. M. (2023). Middle-managers’ innovative behavior: The roles of psychological empowerment and personal initiative. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(18), 3464–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nica, E. (2016). Employee voluntary turnover as a negative indicator of organizational effectiveness. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 4(2), 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M. B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K. (2017). Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 31(2), 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Oggiano, M. (2022). Neurophysiology of emotions. In Neurophysiology—Networks, plasticity, pathophysiology and behavior. IntechOpen. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Petitta, L., & Naughton, S. (2015). Mapping the association of emotional contagion to leaders, colleagues, and clients: Implications for leadership. Organization Management Journal, 12(3), 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Petitta, L., Probst, T. M., Ghezzi, V., & Barbaranelli, C. (2019). Cognitive failures in response to emotional contagion: Their effects on workplace accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 125, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Petitta, L., Probst, T. M., Ghezzi, V., & Barbaranelli, C. (2021). Emotional contagion as a trigger for moral disengagement: Their effects on workplace injuries. Safety Science, 140, 105317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Pradhan, R. K., & Hati, L. (2022). The measurement of employee well-being: Development and validation of a scale. Global Business Review, 23(2), 385–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Prochazkova, E., & Kret, M. E. (2017). Connecting minds and sharing emotions through mimicry: A neurocognitive model of emotional contagion. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Quratulain, S. (2020). Trust Violation and recovery dynamics in the context of differential supervisor-subordinate relationships: A study of public service employees. Public Integrity, 22(2), 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Reh, S., Wieck, C., & Scheibe, S. (2021). Experience, vulnerability, or overload? Emotional job demands as moderator in trajectories of emotional well-being and job satisfaction across the working lifespan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(11), 1734–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Reizer, A., Brender-Ilan, Y., & Sheaffer, Z. (2019). Employee motivation, emotions, and performance: A longitudinal diary study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(6), 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rouxel, G., Michinov, E., & Dodeler, V. (2016). The influence of work characteristics, emotional display rules and affectivity on burnout and job satisfaction: A survey among geriatric care workers. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 62, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ruggieri, S., Ingoglia, S., Bonfanti, R. C., & Lo Coco, G. (2021). The role of online social comparison as a protective factor for psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study during the COVID-19 quarantine. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ryan, R. M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2023). Self-determination theory: Metatheory, methods, and meaning. In The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 3–30). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Sansinenea, E., Asla, N., Agirrezabal, A., Fuster-Ruiz-de-Apodaca, M. J., Muela, A., & Garaigordobil, M. (2020). Being yourself and mental health: Goal motives, positive affect and self-acceptance protect people with HIV from depressive symptoms. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 593–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Simillidou, A., Christofi, M., Glyptis, L., Papatheodorou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2020). Engaging in emotional labour when facing customer mistreatment in hospitality. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Song, S., Yang, X., Yang, H., Zhou, P., Ma, H., Teng, C., Chen, H., Ou, H., Li, J., Mathews, C. A., Nutley, S., Liu, N., Zhang, X., & Zhang, N. (2021). Psychological Resilience as a protective factor for depression and anxiety among the public during the outbreak of COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 618509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Terry, P. E. (2022). Well-being and evolving work autonomy: The locus of control construct revisited. American Journal of Health Promotion, 36(4), 593–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Uhl-Bien, M., Carsten, M., Huang, L., & Maslyn, J. (2022). What do managers value in the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship? Identification and measurement of the manager’s perspective of LMX (MLMX). Journal of Business Research, 148, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. USLU, Ö. (2022). The relationship between attitudes towards school and general self-efficacy: The moderation effect of level of education. In Current researches in educational sciences V. Akademisyen Publishing House Inc. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ustrov, Y., Valverde, M., & Ryan, G. (2016). Insights into emotional contagion and its effects at the hotel front desk. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2285–2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Velarde Pierce, S., Haro, A. Y., Ayón, C., & Enriquez, L. E. (2021). Evaluating the 0ts. Journal of Latinos and Education, 20(3), 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Vella, S.-L., & Pai, N. (2019). A theoretical review of psychological resilience: Defining resilience and resilience research over the decades. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences, 7(2), 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Verma, J., Sinha, A., Bhattacharjee, S. B., & Tuan Luu, T. (2024). Emotional intelligence as an antecedent of employees’ job outcomes through knowledge sharing in IT-ITeS firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Verzeletti, C., Zammuner, V. L., Galli, C., & Agnoli, S. (2016). Emotion regulation strategies and psychosocial well-being in adolescence. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1199294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vinh, N. Q., Hien, L. M., & Do, Q. H. (2022). The relationship between transformation leadership, job satisfaction and employee motivation in the tourism industry. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wang, K., Zhang, S., & Fan, Y. (2024). Relationship between daily job resources and job performance: The mediating role of emotions from within-perspective. Sage Open, 14(4), 21582440241293549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wang, X., & Shaheryar. (2020). Work-Related Flow: The development of a theoretical framework based on the high involvement HRM practices with mediating role of affective commitment and moderating effect of emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 564444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wehrt, W., Casper, A., & Sonnentag, S. (2022). More than a muscle: How self-control motivation, depletion, and self-regulation strategies impact task performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(8), 1358–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. [Google Scholar]
  109. Williams, C. E., Thomas, J. S., Bennett, A. A., Banks, G. C., Toth, A., Dunn, A. M., McBride, A., & Gooty, J. (2024). The role of discrete emotions in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(1), 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wilson, J. M., Weiss, A., & Shook, N. J. (2020). Mindfulness, self-compassion, and savoring: Factors that explain the relation between perceived social support and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Xerri, M. J., Cozens, R., & Brunetto, Y. (2023). Catching emotions: The moderating role of emotional contagion between leader-member exchange, psychological capital and employee well-being. Personnel Review, 52(7), 1823–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zablah, A. R., Sirianni, N. J., Korschun, D., Gremler, D. D., & Beatty, S. E. (2017). Emotional convergence in service relationships: The Shared frontline experience of customers and employees. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhou, X. (2018). A review of researches workplace loneliness. Psychology, 9(5), 1005–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., & Li, C. (2023). Modeling emotional contagion in the COVID-19 pandemic: A complex network approach. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Proposed study model.
Figure 1. Proposed study model.
Tourismhosp 06 00046 g001
Figure 2. Estimation of structure model.
Figure 2. Estimation of structure model.
Tourismhosp 06 00046 g002
Figure 3. Moderation effects of PR on EC towards PW.
Figure 3. Moderation effects of PR on EC towards PW.
Tourismhosp 06 00046 g003
Figure 4. Moderation effects of LMX on EC towards JS.
Figure 4. Moderation effects of LMX on EC towards JS.
Tourismhosp 06 00046 g004
Figure 5. Moderation effects of LMX on EC towards JP.
Figure 5. Moderation effects of LMX on EC towards JP.
Tourismhosp 06 00046 g005
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic background.
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic background.
CategoryGroup (N = 792)Frequency%
Gender
Male56772.6
Female21427.4
Age group
18–2933643.0
30–3923329.8
40–4917322.2
50–59384.9
60 and above1.1
Education
High School425.4
Middle school39049.9
Bachelor’s Degree26734.2
Postgraduate283.6
Other546.9
Marital status
Married44657.1
Single32041.0
Divorced151.9
Experience
Less than 2 years15620.0
2 to 5 years17622.5
5 to 10 years13617.4
More than 10 years31340.1
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) outcomes for the measurement model.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) outcomes for the measurement model.
Factors and ItemsΛVIFMeanSDSKKU
Emotional contagion (EC) (α = 0.868, CR = 0.899, AVE = 0.597)
EC10.8022.0453.0421.360−0.267−1.253
EC20.7881.7432.3031.1250.586−0.624
EC30.7683.3263.1691.390−0.422−1.175
EC40.7663.3753.1771.388−0.483−1.142
EC50.7501.6852.3781.1960.534−0.747
EC60.7621.8282.9551.269−0.195−1.055
Psychological well-being (PW) (α = 0.960, CR = 0.965, AVE = 0.734)
PW10.8394.4034.1290.897−1.3562.347
PW20.8524.6894.1360.893−1.3752.400
PW30.8523.0534.0780.966−1.4132.176
PW40.8604.5524.1640.909−1.4162.385
PW50.8714.8784.1770.878−1.3872.481
PW60.8604.4064.1360.938−1.5082.722
PW70.8624.4894.1380.940−1.4492.416
PW80.8734.3784.3110.910−1.7913.647
PW90.8453.7024.3830.989−2.0784.227
PW100.8543.7894.3550.937−1.8853.703
Job satisfaction (JS) (α = 0.920, CR = 0.944, AVE = 0.807)
JS10.9243.6194.0740.932−1.3962.405
JS20.9003.2403.9280.996−1.0891.095
JS30.8732.6413.7721.037−0.9010.548
JS40.8942.9703.8771.033−1.0751.010
Job performance (JP) (α = 0.935, CR = 0.951, AVE = 0.794)
JP10.9184.7134.0611.071−1.4971.998
JP20.9144.7173.9301.105−1.1740.938
JP30.8472.7103.7841.166−0.8670.053
JP40.9143.9434.1751.076−1.7222.632
JP50.8602.6234.1611.049−1.6842.658
Leader–member exchange (LMX) (α = 0.933, CR = 0.949, AVE = 0.790)
LMX10.9194.5663.8351.288−1.1950.345
LMX20.9174.4123.6671.254−0.946−0.073
LMX30.8842.9973.3091.206−0.526−0.586
LMX40.9163.8763.6081.241−0.894−0.135
LMX50.8032.1913.1571.256−0.299−0.972
Psychological resilience (PR) (α = 0.959, CR = 0.965, AVE = 0.732)
PR10.8793.7703.9710.907−1.3872.461
PR20.8884.5613.8480.930−1.0441.372
PR30.8002.7793.6880.942−0.6710.580
PR40.7902.4613.7500.995−0.7910.477
PR50.8523.1523.9140.991−1.0651.118
PR60.8844.0764.0830.908−1.3071.998
PR70.8833.9973.9820.950−1.2511.761
PR80.8914.5764.0720.911−1.2931.973
PR90.8914.2144.1550.934−1.4202.197
PR100.7882.3193.9030.953−1.0251.101
Note: SK = skewness; KU = kurtosis.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
ConstructsECJPJSLMXPRPW
Emotional contagion (EC)0.773
Job performance (JP)−0.2890.891
Job satisfaction (JS)−0.2350.4680.898
Leader–member exchange (LMX)0.2140.3640.4110.889
Psychological resilience (PR)−0.1670.4410.4380.3130.856
Psychological well-being (PW)−0.3270.6350.5810.2700.4040.857
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
ConstructsECJPJSLMXPRPW
Emotional contagion (EC)
Job performance (JP)0.304
Job satisfaction (JS)0.2550.498
Leader–member exchange (LMX)0.2590.3850.438
Psychological resilience (PR)0.1770.4610.4620.329
Psychological well-being (PW)0.3430.6650.6140.2820.419
Note: The HTMT values should be less than 0.90.
Table 5. Hypotheses testing.
Table 5. Hypotheses testing.
Hypothesisβt pF2Remark
Direct effect
H1: EC → PW−0.2788.1380.0000.104
H2: EC → JS−0.1434.3510.0000.028
H3: EC → JP−0.1414.1680.0000.033
H4: PW → JS0.3807.1050.0000.165
H5: PW → JP0.3726.4870.0000.188
Indirect mediating effect
H6: EC → PW → JS−0.1065.6390.000
H7: EC → PW → JP−0.1045.6480.000
Moderating effects
H8: EC × PR → PW0.2125.5430.000
H9a: EC × LMX → JS0.1023.1190.002
H9b: EC × LMX → JP0.2226.4770.000
Job performance R20.532Q20.391
Job satisfactionR20.442Q20.332
Psychological well-beingR20.278Q20.190
Note: Emotional contagion = EC; psychological well-being = PW; job performance = JP; intentions to leave = IL; leader–member exchange = LMX; ✔ = supported.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Alyahya, M.; Mohammad, A.A.A.; Fayyad, S.; Elsawy, O. Emotional Contagion in the Hospitality Industry: Unraveling Its Impacts and Mitigation Strategies Through a Moderated Mediated PLS-SEM Approach. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010046

AMA Style

Elshaer IA, Azazz AMS, Alyahya M, Mohammad AAA, Fayyad S, Elsawy O. Emotional Contagion in the Hospitality Industry: Unraveling Its Impacts and Mitigation Strategies Through a Moderated Mediated PLS-SEM Approach. Tourism and Hospitality. 2025; 6(1):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010046

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Alaa M. S. Azazz, Mansour Alyahya, Abuelkassem A. A. Mohammad, Sameh Fayyad, and Osman Elsawy. 2025. "Emotional Contagion in the Hospitality Industry: Unraveling Its Impacts and Mitigation Strategies Through a Moderated Mediated PLS-SEM Approach" Tourism and Hospitality 6, no. 1: 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010046

APA Style

Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., Alyahya, M., Mohammad, A. A. A., Fayyad, S., & Elsawy, O. (2025). Emotional Contagion in the Hospitality Industry: Unraveling Its Impacts and Mitigation Strategies Through a Moderated Mediated PLS-SEM Approach. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010046

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop