Sometimes, with an important condition: one randomized workplace trial found that employees who practiced brief cognitive reappraisal activities during the workday for three weeks still reported differences in work behavior one month after the activities ended. That is encouraging evidence for repeated, situation-specific practice. It does not establish that a single notification, any generic emotional-intelligence prompt, or a brief exercise will reliably change behavior for the long term.
What happened after the workplace prompts stopped?
A prompt can help someone feel differently in the moment and still leave their next action unchanged. The more consequential question is whether practice carries into later workdays, when the prompt is gone. A 2025 randomized workplace study offers a rare direct test, and its answer is cautiously positive: the measured differences in work behavior had not faded at a follow-up one month after the intervention ended.
The study recruited US adults working at least 30 hours a week on weekday day shifts. Of 183 people who completed the initial survey, 176 were retained and assigned to intervention or control groups, 88 in each. Across three workweeks, participants completed two activities each workday. The intervention group practiced two forms of cognitive reappraisal: changing how they interpreted a situation, or changing how they interpreted their emotional response to it. The control group did neutral activities. Participants reported their affect around the activities and their work outcomes at the end of each workday; the researchers also asked about work behavior one month later.
Cognitive reappraisal means reconsidering what an event means in order to change its emotional impact. For instance, after a colleague questions a draft, a person might consider that the comments target a specific decision rather than dismiss the whole contribution. That alternative reading need not be true; the point is to test a less automatic interpretation before responding. In the study, the reappraisal activities reduced reported negative affect and increased positive affect. The authors’ analyses linked lower negative affect to fewer counterproductive work behaviors and higher positive affect to better overall job performance. They reported no fade-out in those outcomes at one month.
There is a useful detail inside that result. In the study’s comparison of activities, reappraising the situation had clearer immediate effects on affect than reappraising the emotion. This is a finding about these two exercises, in this sample and design, not a rule that situation-focused reframing is always best. The reported job outcomes also do not mean researchers independently observed fewer sharp replies, better handoffs, or higher output. Participants reported their own behavior and performance. The study supports a promising carryover signal, not a verified workplace transformation.
The randomized comparison strengthens the inference that the activity package contributed to the differences: assignment to practice or control did not depend on participants choosing which group they preferred. But the intervention bundled the repeated prompts with repeated reflection and strategy rehearsal. That leaves an important practical question unresolved: would the same activity work if delivered less often, or did the schedule itself help people notice moments when they could choose a different response? The trial compares the whole package with neutral activities; it does not separate those ingredients.
When does a prompt become practice rather than a reminder?
The workplace trial tested a repeated activity woven into ordinary work, not a notification that appeared once and vanished. Its three daily surveys placed the activities near current work events and measured affect before and after them; employees repeated this routine over 15 workdays. That schedule matters to the interpretation: the study tested a package of recurring cues, reflection on recent events, and rehearsal of reappraisal. Rehearsal in context is a plausible reason a response might remain available later. The researchers suggest participants may have developed self-regulatory skills, but their study did not isolate skill learning as the cause of the follow-up result. Nor can the results establish that a less frequent cue would have the same effect.
A separate 2024 workplace diary study helps clarify why a tool or cue alone is not enough evidence. Trenz and Keith report that 203 people entered the initial survey; the final daily-diary sample was 72, and 63 were available at the two-week follow-up. Participants selected a work habit and completed two daily assessments across ten workdays; half also received a brief exercise on using implementation intentions, or specific plans about when and how to act. The exercise did not increase daily use of implementation intentions. In the study’s analyses, implementation intentions predicted habit frequency and automaticity, with effects also reported at follow-up. That pattern is an association, not evidence that the exercise caused later behavior: it did not change daily plan use, and the study was about selected work habits rather than emotion regulation. It therefore cautions against assuming that a prompt automatically installs a lasting behavior, without directly testing reappraisal.
For a practical test, make the cue point to one action you can see or record. If critical feedback tends to produce an immediate defensive reply, a specific reappraisal might be: “This comment identifies a concern about this handoff; I can ask which part needs changing before I defend the whole approach.” The observation is whether you ask that clarifying question before replying, not whether you felt calm. Repeat the practice around the relevant event, then stop the reminders for a short period and check whether the action still occurs. A simple count can help, but a short personal observation cannot establish that the prompt caused a change; workload, the other person’s response, or the kind of feedback may also shift. This is a reasoned, low-stakes experiment inspired by the research, not a proven protocol or a guarantee.
A prompt also cannot create choices that the job does not allow. If the handoff is repeatedly rushed because deadlines leave no review time, asking an individual to reinterpret frustration will not supply that time. Regulation can help someone choose a response; it does not remove the need to name an unreasonable workload, set a boundary, or address harmful conduct.
Sources: Cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation interventions in the workplace and their impact on job performance: An ecological momentary intervention approach; Promoting new habits at work through implementation intentions
How much does the wider workplace evidence add?
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2024 makes it more plausible that emotional competencies can improve through workplace training and that some gains last beyond the course. Its authors searched five research databases and analyzed 50 studies in pre-post analyses, alongside a separate set of 27 controlled studies. They reported moderate pooled effects: standardized mean change of 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.59) across the pre-post studies and an intervention-control effect of 0.46 (0.30 to 0.63). The authors said effects persisted more than three months after training ended.
Those averages cover varied programs focused on emotional intelligence, empathy, and emotion regulation, along with varied professions and outcomes. They do not estimate what a short, in-the-moment reappraisal activity does by itself. The authors identify high heterogeneity and low methodological quality across the included studies, which limits confidence in treating the pooled averages as a forecast for a new workplace. Only two interventions specifically trained emotion regulation, most studies relied on self-report, and only 13 of the 50 studies included follow-up. The review supports the broader possibility of retained learning; the randomized reappraisal trial remains the closer match to the question about prompts, but follows people for only one month.
The apparent contrast between “one month” and “more than three months” is not a contest over which result wins. The review pools different programs and measures, while the trial follows a more specific intervention and behavior. For someone deciding what to try next week, the trial is more relevant to the format of the practice; for someone asking whether emotional skills can ever outlast instruction, the review gives wider context. Its uneven follow-up evidence and study quality also mean the longer pooled duration should not be read as proof that any individual skill lasts that long. Neither source resolves whether a self-guided prompt will help a particular person in a particular work setting.
Taken together, the evidence supports a measured verdict: repeated, in-context reappraisal practice may leave some self-reported work-behavior benefits after prompts stop, at least over the month tested. It cannot yet tell us how long those differences last, whether they transfer across occupations, or whether a single reminder has any durable effect. If you try a prompt, choose a specific response, rehearse a concrete alternative interpretation when the relevant situation occurs, and record the response after reminders end. Continue only if the behavior you care about changes in a useful way; otherwise revise the practice or address the conditions driving the problem.
Sources: Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis
Sources
- Cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation interventions in the workplace and their impact on job performance: An ecological momentary intervention approach
Reports the randomized trial sample, repeated three-week reappraisal activities, self-reported work outcomes, and one-month follow-up with no reported fade-out.
- Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis
The accessible PubMed abstract reports pooled effects across 50 pre-post and 27 controlled studies, persistence beyond three months, and high heterogeneity and low study quality.
- Promoting new habits at work through implementation intentions
The accessible publisher article reports 203 people entering the initial survey, a final daily-diary sample of 72, and 63 available at two-week follow-up. The brief exercise did not increase daily implementation-intention use; implementation intentions predicted habit frequency and automaticity, with follow-up effects.
Apply it to the real situation
Turn a recurring work reaction into a practice question
From this guide: The research can describe group-level outcomes, but it cannot show which emotional habit you want to observe in your own next difficult exchange.
The Emotional Skills Profile offers a private way to reflect on recent emotional habits and scenario choices, then identify a development priority to examine in everyday work. Use it to frame one observation about how you handle pressure or disagreement; it is a starting point for reflection, not a norm-based ability score or prediction of performance.