When Reappraisal Helps With Workplace Aggression

When might reappraisal help with a colleague’s aggression?

It may help when revising your interpretation makes the incident clearer and helps you choose what to do next. The most direct workplace evidence is specific: Niven, Sprigg, and Armitage studied social workers (77 people) and emergency-services personnel (70 people). Across these two studies, they reported that reappraisal during interactions with organizational insiders, such as coworkers or managers, weakened the association between aggression and employee strain. The university record provides the abstract and sample sizes, but not enough detail to assess every measure or design choice. The finding is an association in two occupational samples, not proof that reframing causes lower strain for all workers.

Reappraisal means changing the meaning you assign to an event before or while an emotion is developing. It differs from suppression, which means holding back the outward expression of an emotion that is already present. In Gross’s experiment, 120 participants watched a disgusting film and were assigned to reappraise, suppress expression, or watch without those instructions. Both strategies reduced visible emotional expression; reappraisal also reduced reported disgust, while suppression increased sympathetic activation. The experiment clarifies how the strategies can differ, but a film is not a workplace conflict and its physiological result cannot tell us what will happen after a colleague’s aggressive remark.

Consider a colleague who interrupts sharply in a project meeting. A useful reappraisal might move from “they are trying to humiliate me” to “the interruption was disrespectful; I do not yet know why it happened, and I can address its effect on the discussion.” That revised reading does not excuse the interruption. It separates what was observed from a conclusion about motive, leaving room to say, “I had not finished. Please let me complete the point,” or to raise a repeated pattern with someone appropriate. If the conduct is clearly threatening or part of a repeated pattern, the response should address that conduct rather than require the target to find a kinder interpretation.

Sources: Does emotion regulation protect employees from the negative effects of workplace aggression?; Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology

Why can regulating emotion add strain?

Emotion management can become another demand when a worker must control what they feel or show while the interaction continues. Niven and colleagues found that reappraisal and suppression during aggression from legitimate outsiders, such as clients or patients, strengthened the aggression–strain association. The contrast with insider interactions matters: the same strategy did not have one consistent relationship with strain across both kinds of work contact. The authors interpret the outsider pattern through emotional-labor theory, where a role may require employees to manage expressions during service interactions. Their abstract does not establish that display rules caused the stronger association, and the outsider result should not be transferred to coworker aggression.

Emotional labor is the work of managing feelings or expressions to meet perceived rules about how an employee should appear. It overlaps with emotion regulation, but the terms are not interchangeable. Joffe, Kangas, and Peters examined questionnaire responses from 800 people recruited through an Australian university’s online pool who worked in customer-facing roles. After excluding 41 attention-check failures, the analysis included 759 participants; their average age was 22.4, and 78.8% were women. The authors found small-to-moderate correlations between the conceptually similar strategies, reappraisal and deep acting, and suppression and surface acting. Their pattern of associations with affective symptoms also differed. This measurement study describes relationships among self-reported constructs; it does not test whether either strategy causes strain during aggression.

That distinction helps explain why “regulate more” is a poor universal instruction. Reappraisal may alter how an event is understood. Suppression mainly changes what other people can see. Deep acting and surface acting refer to strategies for meeting perceived display expectations at work, and the Joffe study suggests they share some features with general emotion-regulation strategies without being substitutes for them. A person can feel pressure from both the original interaction and the effort required to present an acceptable response. That is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, not a causal result established by the two aggression studies.

The practical question is what the strategy is doing in this particular relationship. If a revised interpretation makes the next step more precise, it may be worth trying. If the only available “reframe” is that you should tolerate conduct so work can continue smoothly, or if the job requires a calm face while aggression repeats, further emotional effort may not solve the source of strain. A role’s rules, power differences, and available support shape what response is possible.

Sources: Does emotion regulation protect employees from the negative effects of workplace aggression?; Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology; An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Emotion Regulation and Emotional Labor

What should you do after the next difficult exchange?

Use one incident to see whether reappraisal improves your response. First, write down the observable act and its work impact: for example, “My colleague interrupted twice while I was explaining the handoff, and the unresolved task was not assigned.” Mark what you know separately from what you infer about intent. Consider another interpretation only if the facts leave genuine uncertainty. The goal is accuracy, not a generous explanation at any cost.

Next, choose an action that fits what happened. You might ask for clarification, name the effect of the behavior, set a limit on how the conversation proceeds, document a repeated pattern, or seek appropriate support. Afterward, notice whether your interpretation helped you act more clearly or only took extra effort to conceal anger or hurt. This is a small self-observation, not a validated intervention. The two workplace studies make selective reappraisal plausible for aggression from insiders; their samples and available abstract do not show that it will protect every person, resolve serious mistreatment, or replace organizational action.

The Emotional Skills Profile at /assessment can offer a private way to reflect on emotional habits and scenario judgments. It is an educational reflection tool, not a validated ability test or a way to decide who was at fault in a conflict. A profile may help you notice a reported tendency, such as delaying a response or reacting quickly, then pick one behavior to observe. The next conversation, not a profile label, is where you can see whether a specific response helped. For recurring aggression, use documentation, a clear boundary, and available workplace support alongside any personal reflection.

The verdict is conditional: try reappraisal when it improves your understanding and gives you a proportionate next move. If aggression is repeated, serious, or tied to a demand that you continually mask your response, prioritize a boundary, documentation, or support. Record the behavior, choose one action, and review what changed. Keep the practice only when it improves clarity or choice; do not make emotional self-management the price of being treated respectfully.

Sources: Does emotion regulation protect employees from the negative effects of workplace aggression?

Questions readers ask