European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Does emotion regulation protect employees from

the negative effects of workplace aggression?

Karen Niven , Christine A. Sprigg & Christopher J. Armitage

To cite this article: Karen Niven , Christine A. Sprigg & Christopher J. Armitage (2013)
Does emotion regulation protect employees from the negative effects of workplace
aggression?, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22:1, 88-106, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2011.626200

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626200

Published online: 10 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1409

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2013
Vol. 22, No. 1, 88–106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626200

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

Karen Niven, Christine A. Sprigg, and Christopher J. Armitage

University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Workplace aggression poses a significant challenge to organizations due to its potential impact on employees’ mental
and physical well-being. Using two studies, this article investigates whether emotion regulation could alleviate the
negative effects of exposure to workplace aggression on employees’ experience of strain, among social workers (N ¼ 77)
and emergency services personnel (N ¼ 70). As predicted from coping theories of emotion regulation, Studies 1 and 2
showed that using the emotion regulation strategy of reappraisal during interactions with individuals from inside the
organization (e.g., coworkers or managers) attenuated the workplace aggression–strain link. Conversely, but consistent
with emotional labour theories of emotion regulation, engaging in reappraisal and suppression during interactions with
legitimate outsiders (e.g., clients or patients) strengthened the workplace aggression–strain link. The findings have
implications for both theory and practical interventions regarding workplace aggression.

Keywords: Bullying; Emotion regulation; Reappraisal; Suppression; Workplace aggression; Work-related violence.

Workplace aggression, defined as negative acts of workplace aggression. We differentiate between

perpetrated against organizational members that
victims are motivated to avoid (Hershcovis &
Barling, 2010), poses a significant challenge to
organizations due to its detrimental effects on
employees’ well-being and health (Bowling & Beehr,
2006), performance and productivity (Ashforth,
1994), and absence from work (Kivimäki, Elovainio,
& Vahteera, 2000). For example, Hoel, Sparks, and
Cooper (2001) estimated that exposure to aggression
from coworkers costs the UK economy £1.5 billion
per year through employee absenteeism. Research in
this area has mainly focused on understanding the
negative effects of workplace aggression. Fewer
studies have tried to identify factors that protect
employees from these negative consequences. In this
article, we present two studies that aim to investigate
whether employees’ use of emotion regulation, the
process of trying to modify experienced or expressed
feelings, could protect them from the negative effects
aggression that originates from inside and outside the
organization, and focus on the outcome of general
psychological strain.
WORKPLACE AGGRESSION
Employees may be exposed to a variety of negative
acts while at work. Exposure to these acts has been
described in the literature using a plethora of terms,
including mistreatment, conflict, deviance, violence,
bullying, incivility, harassment, mobbing, antisocial
behaviour, and abuse (see Barling, Dupre, & Kello-
way, 2009). Here, we follow a recent call to reconcile
terminology by using the term ‘‘workplace aggres-
sion’’ to refer to all such negative acts (Hershcovis,
2011). Thus, the term workplace aggression includes
nonphysical acts like being gossiped about or socially
excluded, as well as physical acts like being hit or
spat at.

Correspondence should be addressed to Karen Niven, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TP, UK.
E-mail: k.niven@sheffield.ac.uk.
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) (R/0707/2: ‘‘The effect of work-
related violence on employee health and well-being’’) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) UK (RES-060-25-0044:
‘‘Emotion regulation of others and self [EROS]’’).

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis


There are four main sources of workplace aggres-
sion: (1) people external to the organization who have
no legitimate relationship with the target (e.g.,
strangers); (2) people external to the organization
who have a legitimate relationship with the target
(e.g., customers, patients, students); (3) people inside
the organization who have a working relationship
with the target (e.g., coworkers, managers, subordi-
nates); and (4) people who have a personal nonwork
relationship with the target (e.g., spouses) (LeBlanc &
Barling, 2005). In this article, we focus on aggression
originating from people external to the organization
who have a legitimate relationship with the target (as
we term it, aggression from outsiders), and people
inside the organization who have a working relation-
ship with the target (aggression from insiders). The
bodies of literature concerning these two types of
workplace aggression have developed relatively sepa-
rately. However, recent organizational studies by
Grandey, Kern, and Frone (2007) and Hershcovis,
Parker, and Reich (2010) and a meta-analysis by
Hershcovis and Barling (2010) consider the two
types of aggression alongside each other, and suggest
that acts of aggression originating from insiders and
outsiders may have different antecedents and buffers.
Whether originating from insiders or outsiders,
workplace aggression may have a substantial impact
on employees. According to the traditional stressor–
strain framework (Lazarus, Delongis, Folkman, &
Gruen, 1985), objective stressors, such as being
subjected to workplace aggression, stimulate cogni-
tive appraisals about the stressor and the employee’s
coping abilities. These stress appraisals cause arousal,
ultimately leading to psychological and physical
strain symptoms (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004;
Melamed et al., 1999; Schat & Kelloway, 2000).
Indeed, several studies demonstrate that victims of
workplace aggression originating from insiders are
likely to suffer serious detriments to their health and
well-being (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Kivimäki et al.,
2003; Leymann, 1996; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).
Research concerning the effects of workplace aggres-
sion originating from outsiders is somewhat less
developed, but studies have indicated that exposure
to outsider aggression, particularly within healthcare
and customer service contexts, may also be linked to
employees’ experiences of emotional exhaustion,
burnout, depression, and poorer health and well-
being (Boyle, Koritas, Coles, & Stanley, 2007;
Dormann & Zapf, 2004; Grandey et al., 2004;
LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002).
EMOTION REGULATION AND
WORKPLACE AGGRESSION
There is a growing literature seeking to identify
variables that will ameliorate the negative effects of
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 89
workplace aggression, with existing studies highlight-
ing contextual factors like organizational support and
autonomy (Schat & Kelloway, 2000, 2003) and
individual characteristics like self-efficacy and sense
of coherence (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Nielsen,
Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008). Even though these
factors can be changed, for example, through organi-
zational interventions or development programmes,
there may be other factors that can be more readily
modified, such as the use of emotion regulation.
Emotion regulation refers to deliberate attempts
‘‘to influence which emotions we have, when we have
them, and how these emotions are experienced or
expressed’’ (Gross, 1998, p. 224) and is deployed in
response to discrepancies between how someone
currently feels and how they either want to feel or
should feel (Carver & Scheier, 1990). People use a
variety of strategies with which to regulate their
emotions. Gross’s (1998) process model of emotion
regulation distinguishes two main strategy types:
antecedent-focused strategies, which involve cogni-
tively or behaviourally modifying the cause of the
emotion, and response-focused strategies, which
involve modifying the emotional expression. Here,
we investigate the antecedent-focused strategy of
reappraisal and the response-focused strategy of
suppression. Evidence suggests that employees’ use
of such strategies can be relatively easily altered. For
instance, a study with trainee teachers indicated that
simply asking teachers to adopt a particular approach
to emotion regulation increased their use of relevant
strategies (Totterdell & Parkinson, 1999), whereas
other interventions that automatize people’s use of
emotion regulation strategies have also been shown
to be effective (Gallo et al., 2009).
To date, only three studies have examined emotion
regulation alongside workplace aggression. Grandey
et al. (2004) demonstrated that the strength of
employees’ stress appraisals following customer
aggression influenced the types of strategies they
used to regulate their emotions, and Rupp and
Spencer (2006) showed that participants in a simu-
lated call centre study who were exposed to dis-
respectful customers exerted more effort trying to
manage their own emotions than those exposed to
neutral or warm customers. Finally, Grandey et al.
(2007) investigated whether employees would show
different patterns of strain responses to verbal abuse
at work when working in occupations with high
versus low expectations that they should display
positive emotions towards customers, but did not
observe any differences. However, it is notable that
each of the three studies focused on emotion
regulation during interactions with organizational
outsiders and that none of the studies tested whether
actually engaging in emotion regulation moderated
the relationship between aggression and strain.
90 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE
Thus, we seek to extend these existing studies in
two main ways. First, we examine employees’ use of
emotion regulation during interactions with organi-
zational outsiders and insiders. Second, we present
the first explicit test of whether use of emotion
regulation moderates the relationship between ag-
gression and strain. We draw on two distinct
perspectives that have emerged within the psycholo-
gical literature to understand how emotion regulation
might affect the link between exposure to workplace
aggression and strain.
Emotion regulation as coping
The first perspective sees emotion regulation as a
form of coping with negative events (Morris & Reilly,
1987; Westen, 1994). This perspective originates from
stress and coping theories (e.g., Pearlin & Schooler,
1978; Selye, 1974), which argue that when people feel
their positive mood is threatened they will use coping
behaviours (e.g., emotion-focused coping) to rectify
the situation. Therefore, emotion regulation is viewed
as a means of dealing with aversive emotions; people
use it to help them achieve the emotion state they
want to feel (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Certainly,
research does suggest that people spontaneously
engage in emotion regulation when they experience
negative feelings at work and that using emotion
regulation can alleviate negative affect and strain
(Gross & John, 2003; Totterdell & Parkinson, 1999).
In the context of the stressor–strain framework, this
perspective therefore suggests that emotion regula-
tion provides a means of coping with stressors like
exposure to aggression and may, as a result, have an
important role to play in buffering the strain response
associated with exposure to workplace aggression.
Emotion regulation as a demand
In contrast, the second perspective regards emotion
regulation as a demand that is part of one’s job
requirements. This perspective is rooted in emotional
labour theory, which contends that in service or care
occupations, employees’ attempts to modify their
emotions during interactions with clients are often
enacted in compliance with organizational rules about
the emotions that it is appropriate to display (Grand-
ey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983). As such, people use
emotion regulation to achieve the emotion state they
believe they should feel (Carver & Scheier, 1990).
Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence that display
rules within service occupations cause employees to
engage in emotion regulation and that the perfor-
mance of emotion regulation in compliance with these
rules can leave employees feeling emotionally ex-
hausted or burned out (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002;
Diefendorff, Richard, & Croyle, 2006; Zapf, 2002). In
the context of the stressor–strain framework, it follows
that from this perspective emotion regulation can be
conceptualized as a demand placed upon employees
that will exacerbate the negative effects of other
stressors, such as exposure to workplace aggression.
Differences between organizational
outsiders and insiders
Clearly, the two perspectives from which emotion
regulation has been conceptualized lead to different
expectations about how emotion regulation might
affect the relationship between workplace aggression
and strain. These different expectations may be
reconciled when we consider the context within which
emotion regulation is used. As Gross and Thompson
(2007) argue, emotion regulation is not inherently
good or bad; rather, it may ‘‘make things either better
or worse, depending on the context’’ (p. 9). In line
with this, a number of studies demonstrate that the
same emotion regulation strategies may have diver-
gent meanings and effects in different contexts (e.g.,
Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007; Grandey, Fisk, & Steiner,
2005). Here, we differentiate between the contexts of
interactions with aggressive outsiders and insiders to
resolve the different predictions that follow from each
perspective of emotion regulation.
Emotion regulation and aggression from
outsiders. Interactions with aggressive legitimate
outsiders, e.g., clients, form a context in which
employees typically use emotion regulation out of
necessity. Employees are often subject to rules about
the emotions it is appropriate to display while
interacting with outsiders (Grandey, 2000;
Hochschild, 1983) and adherence to these display
rules is usually considered a non-negotiable in-role
job requirement (Diefendorff et al., 2006; Rupp &
Spencer, 2006). Even when dealing with an outsider
acting in an aggressive manner, which might elicit
incongruous feelings like anger or fear, the employee
would be expected to display the organizationally
mandated ‘‘appropriate’’ emotion. Other types of
response to the aggression (e.g., retaliation or
discussing the situation) would not be considered
appropriate as they would contravene organizational
display rules; employees would have little option but
to regulate their emotions to achieve the required
display.
Emotion regulation performed in this type of
context is therefore best seen as a demand placed
upon employees to achieve the emotions that they
should feel, consistent with the perspective of emotion
regulation held amongst emotional labour research-
ers (Hochschild, 1983). Theories suggest that, when
behaviours are driven largely by external demands in
this way, they are characterized by low personal

control and so can threaten people’s self-determina-
tion, making them effortful and exhausting to
perform (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Karasek, 1979), and
this effect has been demonstrated with self-regulatory
behaviours like emotion regulation (e.g., Grandey
et al., 2005; Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006). Thus, in
line with research from the emotional labour
perspective (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002), emotion
regulation performed during interactions with (legit-
imate) outsiders who are behaving in an aggressive
manner is likely to intensify employees’ stress
appraisals, resulting in a heightened strain response.
Emotion regulation and aggression from
insiders. In contrast, interactions with aggressive
insiders form a context in which employees typically
use emotion regulation out of choice. Emotion
regulation requirements are rarely explicit when
interacting with individuals from inside an
organization (Diefendorff & Greguras, 2009;
Diefendorff et al., 2006); rather than rigid display
rules (e.g., service with a smile), organizations may
instead have professional norms or codes of conduct
for employees to adhere to. Such norms or codes are
seldom as strictly enforced as the demands inherent
during interactions with outsiders and tend to be
reciprocal in nature, with all employees assumed to
be playing under the same rules of conduct (Tschan,
Rochat, & Zapf, 2005). Thus, if an insider acted
aggressively towards an employee, the norms
regarding the employee’s conduct would probably
be more relaxed, meaning that employees confronted
with aggressive insiders would likely be able to
choose from a variety of responses, such as
expressing negative emotions, verbally retaliating,
or discussing the situation.
Within this relatively high personal control con-
text, employees’ decision to use of emotion regulation
will be self-driven. Theories suggest that when
behaviours are enacted out of choice in this way,
they are typically chosen to promote personal
flourishing (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Karasek, 1979).
For example, both Moller et al. (2006) and Ryan and
Frederick (1997) have reported that those self-
regulatory behaviours that were autonomously se-
lected by participants (as opposed to dictated by the
experimenters) promoted positive outcomes like task
persistence and vitality. The idea that emotion
regulation promotes personal flourishing supports
the perspective of emotion regulation as a means of
coping with negative events to achieve the emotions
that one wants to feel (Morris & Reilly, 1987) and, in
line with research from this perspective (e.g., Totter-
dell & Parkinson, 1999), suggests that the use of
emotion regulation during aggressive interactions
with insiders could help to attenuate employees’
stress appraisals and so alleviate the strain response.
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 91
Overview of the present research
Here, we investigate whether employees’ use of
emotion regulation exacerbates or attenuates the
effects of aggression from organizational outsiders
and insiders on employees’ strain with two studies
using different occupational samples. Both samples
involved employees working in job roles with a great
deal of contact with clients as well as individuals from
inside the organization. The first sample comprised
social workers and therapists from a regional council,
and the second sample comprised emergency services
personnel from an ambulance service. Previous
research has indicated that employees in these
occupations are likely to be at a relatively high risk
of being subjected to workplace aggression (Boyle
et al., 2007; Newhill, 1995). Moreover, employees in
these occupations are typically bound to follow
emotional display rules in their interactions with
clients (Aldridge, 1994; Tracy & Tracy, 1998).
We used our two studies to determine the
robustness and generalizability of the relationships
of interest (Sackett & Larson, 1990). We also used the
studies to extend our understanding about the types
of workplace aggression (nonphysical and physical)
that emotion regulation might moderate the effects
of, and the types of emotion regulation (reappraisal
and suppression) that might play a moderating role in
the workplace aggression–strain relationship.
STUDY 1
In our first study, we focused on acts of nonphysical
aggression. Nonphysical aggression includes verbal
and behavioural acts that do not comprise a strongly
physical element, for instance, being humiliated,
ridiculed, or shouted at, and can be viewed as an
objective stressor. Indeed, existing evidence suggests
that such acts may be strong predictors of employees’
levels of strain (Grandey et al., 2007; Kivimäki et al.,
2000, 2003; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). We expect
that acts of nonphysical workplace aggression origi-
nating from both inside and outside an organization
will be associated with employees’ experiences of
strain.
Hypothesis 1a: Employees’ experiences of non-
physical aggression originating from inside an
organization will be associated with strain.
Hypothesis 1b: Employees’ experiences of non-
physical aggression originating from outside an
organization will be associated with strain.
We explored whether the emotion regulation
strategy of reappraisal would moderate the relation-
ship between nonphysical aggression and strain.
Reappraisal is an antecedent-focused emotion
92 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE
regulation strategy that involves cognitively modify-
ing perceptions of the cause of an emotion (e.g.,
putting an event into perspective, reinterpreting
someone’s actions), and is commonly referred to as
‘‘deep acting’’ in the emotional labour literature, as it
involves changing one’s underlying felt emotion
(Grandey, 2000).
With respect to interactions with legitimate out-
siders, it is likely that reappraisal would be used by
employees as a means of fulfilling their job require-
ments to display appropriate emotions towards
clients (Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983). The lack
of personal choice involved in this activity may
threaten the employee’s self-determination, particu-
larly when there is a dissonance between the employ-
ee’s true emotion and the emotion he or she must
display, as is likely when dealing with an aggressive
outsider (Diefendorff et al., 2006; Rupp & Spencer,
2006). We therefore predict that performing reap-
praisal within aggressive interactions will exacerbate
feelings of strain.
Hypothesis 2a: The use of reappraisal during
interactions with individuals from outside an
organization will exacerbate the negative effects
of nonphysical aggression originating from outside
an organization on strain.
Regarding interactions with people from inside the
organization, as discussed earlier it is likely that
emotion regulation would be used here primarily as a
coping mechanism, a means of dealing with un-
wanted negative feelings (Morris & Reilly, 1987;
Westen, 1994). When exposed to nonphysical aggres-
sion from organizational insiders, reappraisal could
help to positively modify employees’ appraisals of the
severity of the aggression or the intentions of the
perpetrator. Thus it is likely that reappraisal could
play an important role in buffering the strain
response associated with exposure to workplace
aggression.
Hypothesis 2b: The use of reappraisal during
interactions with individuals from inside an
organization will buffer the negative effects of
nonphysical aggression originating from inside an
organization on strain.
Method
Sample and design
A cross-sectional survey was administered online to
employees in the social work department of a
regional council in the UK. Approximately 300 social
workers, therapists, and care officers were employed
in this department. One hundred and eighteen
employees completed at least part of the survey, but
results presented in this article are based on the 77
respondents (60 females and 17 males) who re-
sponded to all relevant measures and who had
worked at the organization for at least 6 months (as
scale items pertained to the last 6 months). The
respondents, who averaged 45.71 years of age (SD ¼
9.8 years) and 12.91 years of tenure on the job
(SD ¼ 8.44 years), were mainly social workers and
occupational therapists, and the majority (71%) were
educated to an undergraduate degree level or higher.
On average, the respondents reported spending 35%
of their time with clients. No demographic differences
were observed between those who completed the
survey and those who started but did not complete it,
and the final sample was demographically similar to
the organization as a whole.
Measures
The survey comprised a series of demographic items
and self-reported measures of nonphysical aggres-
sion, strain and reappraisal. Self-reported data can
have limitations, which we discuss later, but there
are also advantages. Individuals have direct access
to information about their own feelings and
exposure to events, meaning that they should be
able to more accurately report on such constructs
than external raters, who would be likely to rely on
general impressions or metaperceptions of the
employee’s demeanour or behaviours (Lance, La-
Pointe, & Fisicaro, 1994). To minimize self-report
biases, individuals were assured that the data they
provided would be anonymous and confidential,
instructed to answer the questions frankly and
honestly, and told that there were no right or
wrong answers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003).
Nonphysical workplace aggression. We assessed
exposure to nonphysical aggression originating from
inside and outside the organization using the
Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ; Einarsen &
Raknes, 1997). The NAQ is a well-established
scale, shown to have good validity across a range
of samples (e.g., Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). It is
a 22-item measure, with each item representing a
distinct negative act (e.g., ‘‘Having allegations made
against you’’; ‘‘Being humiliated or ridiculed in
connection with your work’’). Respondents are
asked to report the frequency with which they
experienced each of the acts over the past 6 months
on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘‘never’’ (1) to
‘‘daily’’ (5), with scores created by averaging across
scale items. A higher score therefore indicates
higher exposure to nonphysical aggression. In this
 WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 93

study, respondents completed the NAQ twice, once
concerning their exposure to acts originating from
people outside their organization (a ¼ .89, item total
correlations from .51 to .68) and once with
reference to acts originating from people inside
their organization (a ¼ .93, item total correlations
from .52 to .80). People outside the organization
were defined as clients or patients, and people
inside the organization were defined as coworkers,
subordinates, or superiors.
Strain. We used a broad, context-free measure
of strain, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-
12; Goldberg, 1972). The GHQ was developed as a
tool for detecting minor psychiatric disorder in the
general population, and assesses current mental
health. The scale has been shown to be valid in a
number of organizational studies (e.g., LeBlanc &
Kelloway, 2002). The scale comprises 12 items (six
positively worded and six negatively worded) with
individual response scales that require people to
indicate the extent to which they have experienced
a variety of psychological health impairments, such
as anxiety, depression, loss of confidence, and
social dysfunction over the past 6 months. An
example item is ‘‘Lost much sleep over worry’’,
with response options ‘‘Not at all’’ (1), ‘‘No more
than usual’’ (2), ‘‘Rather more than usual’’ (3), and
‘‘Much more than usual’’ (4) (a ¼ .95, item total
correlations from .68 to .86). Again, scores were
created by averaging across scale items, with a
higher score indicating higher strain.
Reappraisal. We used a single item measure to
assess participants’ use of the emotion regulation
strategy of reappraisal. The item chosen was the
highest loading reappraisal item from a validated
scale of emotion regulation created by Grandey et al.
(2004): ‘‘I try to reinterpret what people have said or
done so that I don’t take their actions personally’’.
Single-item indicators of emotion regulation
strategies similar to this have been shown to
correspond well with more established multi-item
measures and to be relatively stable over time (e.g.,
Totterdell & Holman, 2003). We asked participants
to indicate the extent to which they had engaged in
this strategy during their interactions over the past 6
months. We first asked about use of the strategy
during interactions with people outside the
organization, and then asked about interactions
with people inside the organization. As with our
measure of workplace aggression, people outside the
organization were defined as clients or patients, and
people inside the organization were specified as
coworkers, subordinates, or superiors. Participants
responded on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘‘never’’
(1) to ‘‘always’’ (5).
Demographic variables. We asked participants to
indicate their age, gender, and tenure with their
organization, to use as potential controls in our
analyses.
Overview of analyses
Initial correlations (shown in Table 1) indicated
that our demographic variables were largely un-
related to the key variables of interest. Accordingly,
the analyses conducted to test the hypotheses did
not control for these variables (although it should
be noted that when all analyses were rerun with
age, gender, and tenure included as controls, the
same pattern of findings was observed). Hypotheses
1a and 1b, which predicted associations between
exposure to nonphysical aggression and strain, were
therefore tested using correlations. Hypothesis 2
predicted that use of reappraisal would moderate
the nonphysical aggression–strain relationship. Two
separate moderation analyses were conducted,
allowing us to examine whether reappraisal

TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s alphas of study variables in Study 1

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender (1 ¼ female, 2 ¼ male)

2. Age 45.71 9.80 .21* (—)
3. Tenure 12.91 8.44 .16 .48** (—)
4. Nonphysical aggression from outside the 1.32 0.30 .15 7.08 7.09 (.89)
organization
5. Nonphysical aggression from inside the 1.39 0.44 .09 7.04 7.06 .51** (.93)
organization
6. Use of reappraisal during interactions with 2.92 1.13 7.06 7.06 7.01 .32** .30* (—)
outsiders
7. Use of reappraisal during interactions with 2.77 1.04 .06 7.07 7.05 .10 .35** .59** (—)
insiders
8. Strain (GHQ) 2.12 0.66 7.14 7.04 .03 .34** .49** .18 .23* (.95)

N ¼ 77. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

94 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE

moderated the strain effects of nonphysical aggres-
sion from both outsiders (H2a) and insiders (H2b).
We followed procedures suggested by Aiken and
West (1991). At Step 1 of the analyses, the
dependent variable (employee strain) was regressed
onto the standardized independent variable (non-
physical aggression from outsiders or insiders). At
Step 2, the standardized moderator (reappraisal)
was entered as a predictor. Then at Step 3, an
interaction term calculated as the product of the
standardized independent variable and moderator
was entered. A change in significance at Step 3
indicated moderation. Significant interactions were
plotted and simple slopes analyses conducted to test
whether the relationship between aggression and
strain was significant at both low (–1 SD) and high
levels (þ1 SD) of reappraisal.
Prior to conducting the correlation and regression
analyses, we examined the data and found that the
distribution of the nonphysical aggression variables
showed some positive skewness. However, responses
for most items covered the full range of the scales,
and relatively small proportions of participants
reported no exposure to nonphysical aggression
over the last 6 months (10% reported no exposure
to acts from outsiders and 9% reported no exposure
to acts from insiders).
Results
Effects of exposure to workplace
aggression. Means, standard deviations, and
correlations between the main study variables are
displayed in Table 1. Hypotheses 1a and 1b predicted
positive associations between exposure to
nonphysical aggression and strain, and were tested
using correlations presented in this table. As
expected, nonphysical aggression originating from
both inside the organization, r ¼ .49, p 5 .01, and
from legitimate outsiders, r ¼ .34, p 5 .01, was
positively related to strain, explaining 24% and
12% of variance, respectively, in strain levels. Both
hypotheses were therefore supported.
Interactive effects of emotion regulation and workplace
aggression. Hypothesis 2a predicted that use of
reappraisal would exacerbate the association
between nonphysical aggression from outside the
organization and strain. The results of moderated
regression analyses testing this hypothesis are shown
in Table 2. At the first step, nonphysical aggression
from outsiders was entered, b ¼ 0.34, p 5 .01, and
accounted for 12% of the variance in employees’
strain levels. At the second step, reappraisal was
entered and accounted for a nonsignificant amount of
variance, b ¼ 0.06, p ¼ .60, in strain. At the third step,
the nonphysical outsider aggression by reappraisal
interaction was entered, b ¼ 0.28, p 5 .05, and
accounted for a significant amount of the variance
in strain, DR2 ¼ .06, DF(1, 65) ¼ 4.06, p 5 .01.
Therefore, we plotted the significant interaction
(Figure 1) according to Aiken and West (1991).
Simple slope analyses indicated that at low
levels of reappraisal (–1 SD), the relationship
between nonphysical aggression from outsiders
and strain was not significant, b ¼ 0.02, p ¼ .90, but

TABLE 2
Beta and t-values for interactions between reappraisal and nonphysical aggression on strain in Study 1

Interactions with outsiders Interactions with insiders

2
b t DR b t DR2

Step 1
Nonphysical aggression 0.34 2.75** .12** — —
from outsiders
Nonphysical aggression — — 0.49 4.74** .24**
from insiders
Step 2
Nonphysical aggression 0.20 1.62* — —
from outsiders
Nonphysical aggression — — 0.43 3.67**
from insiders
Reappraisal 0.06 0.52 .01 0.07 0.60 .01
Step 3
Nonphysical aggression 0.23 1.95* — —
from outsiders
Nonphysical aggression — — 0.59 4.30**
from insiders
Reappraisal 0.21 1.49 70.08 70.61
Aggression 6 Reappraisal 0.28 2.01* .06* 70.29 72.11* .05*
Total R2 .19 .30

N ¼ 77. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.


this relationship was significant at high levels (þ1
SD) of reappraisal, b ¼ 0.44, p 5 .05. Thus,
reappraisal used during interactions with
organizational outsiders exacerbated the negative
effects of outsiders’ nonphysical aggression, in line
with Hypothesis 2a.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that use of reappraisal
would buffer the association between nonphysical
aggression from inside the organization and strain.
The findings, which are also shown in Table 2,
suggest that at the first step, nonphysical aggression
from insiders accounted for 24% of the variance in
employees’ strain levels, b ¼ 0.49, p 5 .01. At the
second step, reappraisal was entered but did not
account for a significant amount of additional
variance in strain, b ¼ 0.07, p ¼ .55. At the third
step, the nonphysical insider aggression by reapprai-
sal interaction was entered, b ¼ –0.29, p 5 .05, and
accounted for a significant amount of the variance in
strain, DR2 ¼ .05, DF(1, 66) ¼ 4.46, p 5 .05. The
interaction, illustrated in Figure 2, indicated that
the relationship between nonphysical aggression from
insiders and strain was significant at both low levels
Figure 1. Interaction between reappraisal and nonphysical aggression during interactions with outsiders (Study 1).
Figure 2. Interaction between reappraisal and nonphysical aggression during interactions with insiders (Study 1).
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 95
(–1 SD) of reappraisal, b ¼ 0.71, p 5 .01, and high
levels (þ1 SD) of reappraisal, b ¼ 0.23, p 5 .05. Thus
reappraisal used during interactions with organiza-
tional insiders buffered the negative effects of insiders’
nonphysical aggression, although it did not comple-
tely eliminate the link between insider nonphysical
aggression and strain. Hypothesis 2b was therefore
supported.
Discussion
The results of this study show that nonphysical acts
of aggression that originate from both outside and
inside an organization are positively associated with
employees experiencing strain. When those acts
originate from legitimate outsiders (i.e., clients or
patients), employees’ use of the emotion regulation
strategy of reappraisal serves to exacerbate the
workplace aggression–strain relationship. Conver-
sely, our findings show that when those acts
originate from organizational insiders, reappraisal
may help to protect employees from the negative
consequences of aggression, although it does not
96 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE
completely eliminate these negative consequences.
Thus, our study provides initial evidence that
emotion regulation might be a potential buffer
from the negative effects of workplace aggression,
but only when the aggressive behaviour originates
from those inside the organization, such as cow-
orkers or managers.
One potential caveat on the generalizability of the
results of this study could be the largely female final
sample (78% females). However, social work depart-
ments and agencies typically employ more females
than males (e.g., a 1995 survey highlighted that 79%
of members of the US National Association of Social
Workers were females; Gibelman & Schervish, 1997).
Moreover, our results revealed that gender was not
associated with any of the variables of interest (i.e.,
exposure to aggression, use of reappraisal, strain).
Thus, our results are likely to generalize to other
social working samples, and the high proportion of
females is not likely to have strongly affected our
results.
Nevertheless, the results are limited in that the
study only considers how emotion regulation might
protect against or aggravate the negative effects of
nonphysical acts of workplace aggression. In many
jobs, employees face exposure to threats of or
actual physical violence at work (Rogers & Kello-
way, 1997), and it is important to explore whether
emotion regulation could buffer the negative impact
of these physical acts. Furthermore, the study only
considers the role of a single type of emotion
regulation strategy. As discussed earlier, researchers
distinguish two main types of emotion regulation
commonly used within organizations—antecedent-
and response-focused regulation (Grandey, 2000;
Gross, 1998). As such, it would be valuable to
determine whether response-focused strategies like
suppression play a similar role to the antecedent-
focused strategy of reappraisal we have already
examined.
STUDY 2
In this study, we seek to replicate the results of Study
1 in a different occupational sample, to determine
whether the results reported thus far are general-
izable. Thus, we retest Hypothesis 1, examining the
effects on strain of nonphysical aggression from: (a)
insiders and (b) outsiders; and Hypothesis 2, examin-
ing the moderating role of reappraisal on the non
physical aggression–strain relationship during inter-
actions with: (a) outsiders and (b) insiders, amongst a
sample of employees from an ambulance service in
the UK.
We build on Study 1 in two ways. First, we
examine whether emotion regulation also moderates
the negative effects of physical acts of workplace
aggression. Physical acts of aggression are acts that
are intended to cause or threaten physical harm, for
instance, being hit, kicked, or threatened with
violence, and can be conceptualized as objective
stressors, shown to elicit strain responses in employ-
ees (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Schat & Kelloway,
2000, 2003). Thus, acts of physical aggression
originating from both inside and outside an organi-
zation should be associated with employees’ experi-
ences of strain. However, in line with our earlier
theorizing in Study 1, we expect that use of the
emotion regulation strategy of reappraisal will
moderate the effects of physical aggression on strain,
such that it will exacerbate the effects of aggression
from legitimate outsiders and buffer the effects of
aggression from insiders.
Hypothesis 3a: Employees’ experiences of physi-
cal workplace aggression originating from inside
an organization will be associated with strain.
Hypothesis 3b: Employees’ experiences of physi-
cal workplace aggression originating from outside
an organization will be associated with strain.
Hypothesis 4a: The use of reappraisal during
interactions with individuals from outside an
organization will exacerbate the negative effects
of physical aggression originating from outside an
organization on strain.
Hypothesis 4b: The use of reappraisal during
interactions with individuals from inside an
organization will buffer the negative effects of
physical aggression originating from inside an
organization on strain.
The second way in which we build on Study 1 is
that we explore the potential moderating role of
another type of strategy commonly used to regulate
one’s emotions, namely suppression. Suppression is a
response-focused emotion regulation strategy that
involves inhibiting the expression of emotion, and is
commonly referred to as ‘‘surface acting’’ in the
emotional labour literature because it involves faking
one’s outward feelings (Grandey, 2000). With respect
to interactions with legitimate outsiders, suppression
is likely to function in the same manner as
reappraisal, in that it will be used to fulfil external
demands from the organization as opposed to out of
choice and so may threaten the employee’s self-
determination and thus exacerbate the strain caused
by exposure to aggression (Diefendorff et al., 2006;
Rupp & Spencer, 2006). Indeed, there is much
evidence that the use of suppression or surface acting
to fulfil emotional labour demands is experienced as
stressful (Zapf, 2002).
Hypothesis 5a: The use of suppression during
interactions with individuals from outside an

organization will exacerbate the negative effects of
nonphysical aggression originating from outside
an organization on strain.
Hypothesis 5b: The use of suppression during
interactions with individuals from outside an orga-
nization will exacerbate the negative effects of
physical aggression originating from outside an
organization on strain.
However, regarding interactions with people
from inside the organization, suppression may
function somewhat differently to reappraisal. Like
reappraisal, suppression is likely to be used in this
context as a means of coping with exposure to
nonphysical or physical aggression from organiza-
tional insiders, and because the choice to use
suppression is internally driven it should not
exacerbate the strain caused by exposure to
aggression (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, suppres-
sion is typically not an effective coping mechanism.
This is because, unlike reappraisal, suppression does
not change employees’ underlying feelings, merely
their expressed emotions (Gross & John, 2003). As
such, suppression is not expected to buffer employees
from strain when exposed to aggression from
insiders. Thus, we do not expect suppression to
moderate the association between insider aggression
and strain.
Method
Sample and design
A similar cross-sectional survey to that used in
Study 1 was administered online to employees from
an ambulance service in the UK, which comprised
around 250 staff. The survey link was sent out to
all employees who had a work email address and
an advertisement for the survey was placed in an
item in the service newsletter. One hundred and
twenty-six employees completed at least part of the
survey, but results presented in this article are
based on the 70 respondents (30 females and 40
males) who responded to all relevant measures and
who had worked at the organization for at least 6
months. The respondents, who averaged 37.09 years
of age (SD ¼ 8.61 years) and 10.54 years of tenure
on the job (SD ¼ 7.98 years), were mainly para-
medics and emergency medical technicians. Most of
the sample (73%) did not hold a university degree.
On average, the respondents reported spending
61% of their time with patients. Again, no
demographic differences were observed between
those who completed the survey and those who
started but did not complete it, and the final
sample was demographically similar to the organi-
zation as a whole.
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 97
Measures
The survey used in Study 2 comprised the same
demographic items used in Study 1, namely, age,
gender, and organizational tenure. The same measure
of exposure to nonphysical workplace aggression (the
22-item NAQ; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997) was also
used (relating to organizational outsiders a ¼ .93,
item total correlations from .50 to .75; relating to
organizational insiders a ¼ .94, item total correlations
from .52 to .81). Likewise we used the same measures
to assess strain (the GHQ-12; Goldberg, 1972;
a ¼ .93, item total correlations from .57 to .81) and
reappraisal (a single item taken from Grandey et al.,
2004). We also included additional measures of
exposure to physical acts of workplace aggression
and the emotion regulation strategy of suppression.
Physical workplace aggression. We assessed
exposure to physical acts of aggression originating
from inside and outside the organization using the
Violence at Work Scale (VWS; Rogers & Kelloway,
1997). The VWS has been used across a range of
occupational groups and has been shown to have
good validity (e.g., Schat & Kelloway, 2000, 2003). It
is an eight-item scale that includes five items
concerning exposure to actual acts of physical
aggression (e.g., ‘‘Being hit, kicked, grabbed,
shoved, or pushed’’) and three items concerning
exposure to threats of physical aggression (e.g.,
‘‘Being threatened with a weapon’’). To aid
comparisons between the data collected from the
two samples and across the two types of workplace
aggression, we used the response scale from the
NAQ. As such, we asked our respondents to indicate
the frequency with which they experienced each act
over the previous 6 months on a 5-point scale ranging
from ‘‘never’’ (1) to ‘‘daily’’ (5), with scores created
by averaging across scale items. Thus a higher score
indicated higher exposure to physical aggression.
Respondents completed the VWS twice, once
concerning their exposure to acts originating from
outside their organization (a ¼ .86, item total
correlations from .60 to .76) and once with
reference to acts from inside their organization
(a ¼ .72, item total correlations from .43 to .55). As
with Study 1, people outside the organization were
defined as clients or patients, and people inside the
organization were defined as coworkers,
subordinates, or superiors.
Suppression. Use of the emotion regulation
strategy of suppression was assessed using the
highest loading suppression strategy from Grandey
et al.’s (2004) validated scale of emotion regulation:
‘‘I try to fake my feelings’’. Similar single-item
measures have been validated against established
98 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE

multi-item measures and shown to be reliable over
time (e.g., Totterdell & Holman, 2003). As with
reappraisal, we asked participants to indicate the
extent to which they had engaged in this strategy
during their interactions over the past 6 months, first
asking about the use of the strategy during
interactions with people outside the organization,
and then during interactions with organizational
insiders. Participants responded on a 5-point scale
ranging from ‘‘never’’ (1) to ‘‘always’’ (5).
Overview of analyses
The analysis strategy for Study 2 was identical to that
employed in Study 1. Separate regression equations
were computed for each moderator, as existing
literature suggests that people typically prefer to
engage in reappraisal or suppression rather than
using both types of strategy (e.g., Gross & John,
2003), and thus it seems likely that each strategy
would have independent effects. Thus, in total, we ran
six moderated regression analyses, testing whether
the strategy of reappraisal interacted with nonphysi-
cal aggression from outsiders (H2a) and insiders
(H2b); whether reappraisal interacted with physical
aggression from outsiders (H4a) and insiders (H4b);
and whether suppression interacted with nonphysical
aggression from outsiders (H5a) and with physical
aggression from outsiders (H5b). We present the
results of these moderation analyses across two
tables, separating analyses regarding outsider and
insider aggression.
Like Study 1, initial correlations (shown in Table
3) indicated that the demographics were largely
unrelated to the key variables of interest and so
analyses conducted to test the hypotheses did not
control for these variables (again, when all analyses
were rerun with demographic controls, the same
pattern of findings was observed). As with Study 1,
the distribution of the workplace aggression variables
showed some positive skewness, but again responses
for most items covered the full range of the scales,
and relatively small proportions of participants
reported no exposure to the various types of work-
place aggression over the last 6 months (8% and 11%
reported no exposure to nonphysical and physical
acts, respectively, from legitimate outsiders; 9% and
34% reported no exposure to nonphysical and
physical acts, respectively, from insiders). The most
skewed variable was exposure to physical acts of
aggression from organizational insiders, but although
34% reporting no exposure is somewhat high, it is
comparable to the proportions reported in other
samples using the same measure of exposure to
physical acts of workplace aggression (e.g., Schat &
Kelloway, 2003).

TABLE 3
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s alphas of study variables in Study 2

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Gender (1 ¼ female, 2 ¼ male)

2. Age 37.09 8.61 .04 —
3. Tenure 10.54 7.98 .09 .64** —
4. Nonphysical aggression 1.65 0.59 .15 7.07 7.04 (.93)
from outside the
organization
5. Nonphysical aggression 1.66 0.67 .06 .02 .16 .69** (.94)
from inside the
organization
6. Physical aggression from 1.84 0.58 .10 7.02 .09 .72** .41** (.86)
outside the organization
7. Physical aggression from 1.13 0.23 .09 .09 .29** .14 .51** .14 (.72)
inside the organization
8. Use of reappraisal during 3.04 1.14 7.17 7.07 7.29* .06 .01 .04 7.08 —
interactions with
outsiders
9. Use of reappraisal during 2.94 1.20 7.11 .02 7.02 7.04 .22 7.05 .18 .61** —
interactions with insiders
10. Use of suppression 2.72 1.20 7.02 7.16 7.12 .40** .30* .30* .18 .16 .02 —
during interactions with
outsiders
11. Use of suppression 2.47 1.15 7.02 7.26* 7.01 .29* .40** .15 .25* 7.01 .22 .53** —
during interactions with
insiders
12. Strain (GHQ) 1.96 0.55 .13 .01 .12 .26* .54** .18 .19* .18 .37** .35** .47** (.93)

N ¼ 70. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

 WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 99

Results step, the nonphysical outsider aggression by

Effects of exposure to workplace
aggression. Means, standard deviations, and
correlations between the main study variables are
shown in Table 3. Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 3a, and 3b
predicted positive relationships between exposure to
aggression and strain, and were tested using the
correlations presented in Table 3. In line with
Hypotheses 1a and 1b, nonphysical acts of
aggression originating from both inside the
organization, r ¼ .54, p 5 .01, and outside the
organization, r ¼ .26, p 5 .05, were positively related
to strain, explaining 29% and 7% of variance,
respectively, in the emergency service sample’s
strain levels. Similarly, physical acts originating
from inside were positively related to strain, r ¼ .19,
p 5 .05, in line with Hypothesis 3a. However, those
physical acts originating outside the organization
were not associated with strain levels, r ¼ .18, p ¼ .06.
Thus, Hypothesis 3b was not supported.
Interactive effects of emotion regulation and
workplace aggression with outsiders. Hypotheses
2a, 4a, 5a, and 5b predicted that emotion regulation
would exacerbate the effects of aggression from
outside the organization. Analyses testing these
hypotheses in this sample are shown in Table 4. We
first examined the emotion regulation strategy of
reappraisal. With respect to acts of nonphysical
aggression from outsiders (Hypothesis 2a), at the
first step of our analysis nonphysical aggression from
outsiders accounted for 7% of the variance in
employees’ strain levels, b ¼ 0.26, p 5 .01. At the
second step, reappraisal was entered but did not
account for a significant amount of additional
variance in strain, b ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .23. At the third
reappraisal interaction was entered, b ¼ 0.22,
p 5 .05, and accounted for a significant amount of
the variance in strain, DR2 ¼ .04, DF(1, 61) ¼ 3.18,
p 5 .05. With respect to acts of physical aggression
from outsiders (Hypothesis 4a), at the first step of our
analysis physical aggression from outsiders did not
account for a significant proportion of the variance in
employees’ strain levels, b ¼ 0.18, p ¼ .06, and at the
second step, reappraisal also did not account for a
significant proportion of the variance in strain,
b ¼ 0.16, p ¼ .19. However, at the third step, the
physical outsider aggression by reappraisal
interaction was entered, b ¼ 0.27, p 5 .05, and
accounted for a significant amount of the variance
in strain, DR2 ¼ .07, DF(1, 64) ¼ 4.98, p 5 .05. Thus,
reappraisal significantly moderated associations
between both nonphysical and physical aggression
and strain, in line with Hypotheses 2a and 4a.
We then examined the strategy of suppression. In
support of Hypothesis 5a, we found that use of
suppression moderated the association between out-
siders’ nonphysical aggression and strain. At Step 1
of the analysis, nonphysical aggression from out-
siders accounted for 7% of the variance in employees’
strain levels, b ¼ 0.26, p 5 .01. At the second step,
suppression was entered, b ¼ 0.30, p 5 .05, and
accounted for 8% additional variance in strain. At
the third step, the nonphysical outsider aggression by
suppression interaction was entered, b ¼ 0.30,
p 5 .05, and accounted for a significant amount of
the variance in strain, DR2 ¼ .07, DF(1, 61) ¼ 5.60,
p 5 .05. Likewise, and in support of Hypothesis 5b,
suppression moderated the association between out-
siders’ physical aggression and strain. At Step 1,
physical outsider aggression was entered, b ¼ 0.18,
p ¼ .06, but did not account for a significant

TABLE 4
Beta and t-values for interactions between emotion regulation and aggression from outsiders on strain in Study 2

Reappraisal Suppression

Nonphysical Nonphysical
aggression from Physical aggression aggression from Physical aggression
outsiders from outsiders outsiders from outsiders

b t DR2 b t DR2 b t DR2 b t DR2

Step 1
Aggression from outsiders 0.26 2.23** .07* 0.18 1.61 .03 0.26 2.23** .07* 0.18 1.61 .03
Step 2
Aggression from outsiders 0.32 2.68** 0.22 1.81* 0.21 1.67* 0.11 0.96
Emotion regulation 0.14 1.21 .02 0.16 1.32 .03 0.30 2.41* .08* 0.37 3.10** .12**
Step 3
Aggression from outsiders 0.25 2.03* 0.21 2.07* 0.14 1.15 0.10 0.89
Emotion regulation 0.11 0.96 0.10 0.83 0.20 1.58 0.23 1.65
Aggression 6 Emotion regulation 0.22 1.78* .04* 0.27 2.23* .07* 0.30 2.37* .07* 0.25 1.85* .04*
Total R2 .13 .13 .22 .19

N ¼ 70. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

100 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE

proportion of the variance in strain. At Step 2,
suppression accounted for 12% of additional var-
iance in strain, b ¼ 0.37, p 5 .01. Finally, at Step 3,
the physical outsider aggression by suppression
interaction was entered, b ¼ 0.25 p 5 .05, and ac-
counted for a significant amount of the variance in
strain, DR2 ¼ .04, DF(1, 64) ¼ 3.42, p 5 .05.
The results of simple slopes analyses suggest that
in all of these interactions, aggression from outsiders
was significantly related to strain at high levels (þ1
SD) of emotion regulation, bs 4 .17, ps 5 .05, but
not low levels (–1 SD) of emotion regulation,
bs 5 .08, ps 4 .42. Figure 3 illustrates one of these
interactions, between use of the emotion regulation
strategy of suppression and exposure to physical
aggression during interactions with organizational
outsiders. It should be noted that all of the
interactions took the same form. Thus, our results
indicate that emotion regulation used during interac-
tions with organizational outsiders exacerbated the
negative effects of workplace aggression, in line with
our hypotheses.
Interactive effects of emotion regulation and
workplace aggression with insiders. Hypotheses 2b
and 4b predicted that the emotion regulation strategy
of reappraisal would buffer the effects of aggression
from inside the organization. Analyses testing these
hypotheses are shown in Table 5. In line with
Hypothesis 2b, use of reappraisal moderated the
association between nonphysical aggression
originating from inside the organization and strain.
At Step 1 of the analysis, insider nonphysical
aggression accounted for 29% of the variance in
strain, b ¼ 0.54, p 5 .01. At the second step,
reappraisal was entered, b ¼ 0.24, p 5 .05, and
accounted for 6% additional variance. At the third
step, the nonphysical insider aggression by
reappraisal interaction was entered, b ¼ –0.29,
p 5 .05, and accounted for a significant amount of
the variance in strain, DR2 ¼ .04, DF(1, 64) ¼ 4.30,
p 5 .05. In support of Hypothesis 4b, reappraisal also
moderated the association between insider physical
aggression and strain. At Step 1, physical insider
aggression and accounted for 4% of the variance in

Figure 3. Interaction between suppression and physical aggression during interactions with outsiders (Study 2).

TABLE 5
Beta and t-values for interactions between emotion regulation and aggression from insiders on strain in Study 2

Nonphysical aggression from insiders Physical aggression from insiders

2
b t DR b t DR2

Step 1
Aggression from insiders 0.54 5.40** .29** 0.19 1.67* .04*
Step 2
Aggression from insiders 0.51 5.05** 0.19 1.60
Reappraisal 0.24 2.35* .06* 0.32 2.71** .10**
Step 3
Aggression from insiders 0.73 5.11** 0.41 2.55*
Reappraisal 0.17 1.61 0.30 2.54*
Aggression 6 Reappraisal 70.29 72.07* .04* 70.32 71.96* .05*
Total R2 .39 .19

N ¼ 70. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.


strain, b ¼ 0.19, p 5 .05. At Step 2, reappraisal
accounted for a further 10% of variance, b ¼ 0.32,
p 5 .05. Finally, at Step 3, the physical insider
aggression by reappraisal interaction was entered,
b ¼ –0.32, p 5 .05, and accounted for a significant
amount of the variance in employees’ strain levels,
DR2 ¼ .05, DF(1, 61) ¼ 3.85, p 5 .05.
Figure 4 illustrates that the relationship between
nonphysical aggression from insiders and strain was
significant at both low levels (–1 SD) of reappraisal,
b ¼ 0.60, p 5 .01, and high levels (þ1 SD) of
reappraisal, b ¼ 0.20, p 5 .05. In contrast, the
relationship between physical aggression from in-
siders and strain was significant at low levels (–1
SD) of reappraisal, b ¼ 0.42, p 5 .05, but not at
high levels (þ1 SD) of reappraisal, b ¼ –0.01,
p ¼ .95. Our results therefore suggest reappraisal
attenuated the relationship between exposure to
insider aggression and strain, in support of
Hypotheses 2b and 4b, although it should be noted
that even with high levels of reappraisal, a link
between nonphysical aggression and strain was
observed.1
Discussion
The results of this study replicate the findings of
Study 1 among a sample of emergency service
personnel, showing that exposure to nonphysical
acts of aggression from both outside and inside the
organization is positively associated with these
employees’ strain, and that the emotion regulation
strategy of reappraisal moderates the effects of
nonphysical workplace aggression. The current
study also expands on Study 1 by examining
physical acts of aggression as well as nonphysical
acts. Interestingly, the physical acts of aggression
that we studied had less consistent relationships
with employees’ strain levels than did the non-
physical acts of aggression. One reason why this
might be is that physically aggressive acts are
relatively rare and may be seen as anomalies to
everyday life that are unlikely to be repeated
(especially those acts from outsiders who may not
return to the organization), whereas employees may
expect to experience nonphysical acts of aggression
again in the future, thus prolonging the stress
appraisal and subsequent arousal connected to the
act of aggression. Nonphysical acts of aggression
1
Although we did not hypothesize such effects, it should be
noted that additional analyses examining the impact of suppression
on the insider aggression–strain relationship suggested that
suppression did not moderate the relationship between insider
nonphysical aggression and strain, Step 3 b ¼ –0.19, p ¼ .11, nor the
relationship between insider physical aggression and strain, Step 3
b ¼ 0.03, p ¼ .80.
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 101
may also be somewhat more covert and less easy to
bring to the attention of the organization, and so
this too may add to the fear of future aggression
(LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002) and lead employees to
hold little hope of the perpetrator being brought to
justice.
Even though physical aggression had a weaker
link to employees’ strain levels, our results show
that the exacerbating and protective role
of reappraisal extends to the strain effects of
physical as well as nonphysical acts of aggression
from outsiders and insiders. Thus, despite negative
emotions seeming like a completely normal and
functional response to a physically aggressive act
like being hit, kicked, or threatened, our results
suggest that reappraising the situation to relieve
those negative emotions could provide an effective
means for employees to cope with exposure to such
acts when they originate from inside the
organization.
Our study also highlights that another emotion
regulation strategy, suppression, can exacerbate the
negative impact of both physical and nonphysical
acts of outsider aggression. However, we did not
expect that suppression would buffer employees from
the negative effects of aggression originating from
organizational insiders, and additional analyses
showed no buffering effects. This is likely to be
due to the nature of suppression as a response-
focused strategy that involves modification of
emotional expression (Gross, 1998), meaning that
it does not bring about changes to people’s internal
emotion states or modify their appraisals of a
stressful situation (Gross & John, 2003). Thus,
although using suppression as a means of coping
with aggression from insiders may not exacerbate
strain, it also does not protect employees from the
negative effects of aggression.
Our decision not to test the interactive effects of
the two emotion regulation strategies we investigated
alongside each other, because they are typically
conceptualized as independent strategies (e.g., Gross
& John, 2003), was supported by the fact that
reappraisal and suppression were found to be
uncorrelated in the dataset. However, future research
could investigate whether suppression exacerbates the
aggression–strain relationship to a greater extent than
does reappraisal, or whether the exacerbation effect
of reappraisal even disappears when suppression is
considered in the same analysis. Overall, the results of
this study provide further evidence of the relevance of
emotion regulation in relation to the effects
of workplace aggression, indicating that the strategy
of reappraisal might help to protect employees from
negative effects of nonphysical and physical work-
place aggression that originates from inside the
organization.
102 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE
Figure 4. Interaction between reappraisal and nonphysical aggression during interactions with insiders (Study 2).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Existing research has highlighted the relevance of
workplace aggression as a contemporary organiza-
tional issue, demonstrating the negative impact of
exposure to workplace aggression on employees’
physical and mental health (Bowling & Beehr, 2006;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). Accordingly, there is a
need for researchers to identify promising ways of
protecting employees from the negative effects of
workplace aggression. This article described an
investigation into the role that emotion regulation
might play in moderating the workplace aggression–
strain link.
Across two different samples, we found that
exposure to nonphysical aggression originating from
both outside and inside an organization was posi-
tively associated with employees’ experiences of
strain. Physical aggression from insiders was also
positively associated with strain in Study 2. Employ-
ees’ use of both reappraisal and suppression strategies
to regulate their emotions exacerbated the negative
effects of nonphysical and physical acts of aggression
from legitimate organizational outsiders (i.e., clients
or patients), whereas reappraisal but not suppression
buffered the negative effects of nonphysical and
physical acts of aggression from organizational
insiders. However, although the predicted attenua-
tion of the insider aggression–strain relationship was
observed in both studies under high reappraisal, only
with respect to physical aggression did high reapprai-
sal completely eliminate a relationship between
aggression and strain. In both studies there was still
a significant association between insider nonphysical
aggression and strain at high levels of reappraisal.
This pattern of findings suggests that although
reappraisal can aid employees’ coping, this strategy
alone cannot fully protect employees from the
negative consequences of exposure to nonphysical
aggression from inside their organizations.
The replication of the same pattern of findings
across two distinct organizational contexts lends
generalizability to the associations we have reported
(Sackett & Larson, 1990). Similarly, the replication of
findings when looking at two different types of
workplace aggression (physical and nonphysical)
and, in part, when examining two types of emotion
regulation strategy (reappraisal and suppression)
strengthens the case for emotion regulation playing
a role in determining the effects of workplace
aggression.
Theoretical contributions
This research offers three main contributions to
research concerning workplace aggression. First, the
research extends the range of known buffers from the
negative effects of workplace aggression. Previous
studies have highlighted a number of contextual and
individual difference buffers, including organizational
support and self-efficacy (e.g., Mikkelsen & Einarsen,
2002; Schat & Kelloway, 2003), but no studies to date
have investigated emotion regulation as a buffering
factor. In this research, taking the perspective of
emotion regulation as a form of coping (Morris &
Reilly, 1987; Westen, 1994), we explain how emotion
regulation might be used to cope with aggression
originating from organizational insiders, which would
ultimately attenuate employees’ stress appraisals and
alleviate the strain response. Our findings show that
employees’ use of the strategy of reappraisal might
serve to protect them from extreme negative effects of
aggression originating from inside their organization.
This extends previous research that has conceptua-
lized emotion regulation as coping but has not
examined whether emotion regulation attenuates the
effects of workplace aggression (Grandey et al., 2004).
Second, this research contributes towards under-
standing why aggression that originates from legit-
imate outsiders (e.g., from clients or patients) has

negative effects on employees. Following from emo-
tional labour theory (e.g., Grandey, 2000; Hochs-
child, 1983), we argue that in service and care jobs
like those in the current studies employees typically
use emotion regulation during interactions with
clients to fulfil their job requirements. Performing
emotion regulation in this context can threaten
employees’ self-determination and is therefore likely
to exacerbate the negative effects of workplace
aggression (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Karasek, 1979).
Our findings are supportive of this theory and, in
fact, suggest that aggression from outsiders is only
associated with strain when it is accompanied by high
use of the emotion regulation strategies of reappraisal
or suppression. Our findings therefore extend the
proposition made by Grandey et al. (2007) that
workplace aggression may have more negative effects
for employees working in occupations that have high
emotional labour demands, and help to resolve the
lack of support found for this prediction. Specifically,
our findings suggest that Grandey and colleagues’
null effects may be because they examined the
demands of the job as opposed to the actual use of
emotion regulation; employees who are expected to
regulate their emotions do not always do so and may
choose to deviate from feeling and display rules
(Tschan et al., 2005).
Third, this research provides insight into the
differences between acts of workplace aggression
that originate from outside versus inside the organi-
zation. Apart from a few notable exceptions (e.g.,
Grandey et al., 2007; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002),
previous research has tended to focus on aggression
from either customers and clients or coworkers
and supervisors. By exploring the different role
played by emotion regulation in determining the
effects of each of these types of workplace aggression,
the current research furthers understanding about
when and why workplace aggression from different
sources may have different effects.
The research also contributes to the wider emotion
regulation literature. By taking two different perspec-
tives of emotion regulation—as a means of coping
(Morris & Reilly, 1987) and as a stressor (Hochschild,
1983)—our study provides insight into the nature of
emotion regulation at work. Our findings are
consistent with both of these perspectives, when
linked to interactions with organizational insiders
and outsiders, respectively. Furthermore, our findings
regarding interactions with organizational outsiders
indicate that when employees experience low levels of
workplace aggression from clients or patients, those
employees who use high levels of emotion regulation
do not experience any more strain than those
employees who use low levels of emotion regulation.
This suggests that emotion regulation used to fulfil
role requirements may not always act as a stressor
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 103
and that strain may only occur when an employee is
required to display an emotion that he or she does
not currently feel (e.g., showing calmness following
an act of aggression from a client), consistent with
previous research on dissonance (Zapf, 2002).
Limitations and future directions
A number of limitations are evident in this research,
which can be addressed in future research. First, the
correlational design of the research means that the
direction of causality in the relationships we have
reported is not unequivocal. Although the causal link
between workplace aggression and strain is well-
established in the literature, including in longitudinal
research studies (e.g., Kivimäki et al., 2003), suggest-
ing that the direct associations we observed are likely
to be in the expected causal direction, our moderated
effects are still somewhat ambiguous. For instance,
our results do not rule out the possibility that people
who tend to engage in reappraisal do not experience
as much aggression as others and thus tend to have
better psychological health, rather than our inter-
pretation that engaging in reappraisal alleviates the
negative effects of aggression. Future research could
employ a longitudinal design or use a vignette
approach to manipulate perceived exposure to work-
place aggression to help resolve the causal direction
of the relationships established in this research.
Second, the reliance on self-reported data could
have resulted in artificially inflated correlations
between variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However,
if common method variance was a problem in this
data set, one would expect all correlations to be
artificially inflated and to a similar degree (Grandey
& Cropanzano, 1999), which was not the case. Future
studies could take further steps to overcome the
threat of common method variance by using non-self-
reported data. While external raters may not be
appropriate for assessing the constructs of interest, a
more objective outcome measure such as days of
absence could be used as an indicator of strain.
Third, our measures of emotion regulation are
limited in several ways. Most notably, single-item
measures were used to assess emotion regulation.
This approach was taken because the samples studied
spent much of their time in the field, making it
important to keep the survey to a short length. Multi-
item scales are generally preferable because item
responses are thought to reflect both random
measurement error and true score variance and so
aggregating over multiple items allows random errors
to be cancelled out (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski,
2001). However, it is also true that more systematic
errors (e.g., social desirability) may be compounded
by the use of multiple similar items to assess the same
construct (Robins et al., 2001) and that single items
104 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE
can help to avoid participant boredom and fatigue
(Burisch, 1984). For such reasons, single item
indicators of emotion regulation strategies like the
items we chose have been used and validated
extensively in organizational research (e.g., Totterdell
& Holman, 2003). A related issue is that the single
items used in the current research might suggest
alternative explanations for our results; for example,
personality traits could underlie use of the emotion
regulation strategies we examined (e.g., people high
in neuroticism might be more likely to take others’
actions personally and so engage in the reappraisal
strategy). However, such alternative explanations
would find it difficult to account for the different
patterns of effects regarding interactions with out-
siders versus insiders. Finally, these items were
retrospective in nature, asking participants to reflect
on their use of emotion regulation over the previous 6
months, meaning that there could be some issues with
accuracy of responding. Thus, we advocate future
research on this topic using a multi-item measure of
emotion regulation over a shorter time-frame.
A final limitation is that both studies comprised
relatively small samples. In particular, relatively small
proportions of the potential samples began each of
the surveys (participation rates of 39% in Study 1 and
50% in Study 2), and the completion rates among
those who began the surveys were also relatively low
(65% in Study 1 and 56% in Study 2). The low
participation rates are likely the result of difficultly in
accessing email for the samples of employees chosen
for this research, who were based in the field for most
of their working days; indeed, participation rates for
surveys distributed by email of 20% or lower are not
uncommon (Witmer, Colman, & Katzman, 1999).
Yet it is also possible that there was some self-
selection in operation, such that those who responded
to our surveys were invested in the topic of study
because they had exposed to workplace aggression.
The low completion rates may have stemmed from
the length of the surveys; although efforts were made
to keep the size of the surveys small (e.g., using single
item measures where appropriate), online surveys
often have large drop-out rates, in part because,
unlike surveys that can be completed in the presence
of the researcher, participants can exit the survey at
any time (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003).
Because our final samples were demographically
similar to both the groups of participants who started
but did not complete the surveys and the organiza-
tions as a whole, our samples are likely to be
representative of the organizations we studied.
However, future research with higher rates of
participation and completion would allow greater
confidence in the results we report.
Another important direction for future research
will be to explore the role played by emotion
regulation in buffering or exacerbating the effects of
workplace aggression from more differentiated
sources. In distinguishing between aggression origi-
nating from inside and outside the organization, we
have demonstrated clear differences in the impact of
emotion regulation on the aggression–strain relation-
ship, which provides an important contribution to the
literature. However, as discussed earlier in the article,
there are thought to be four common sources of
workplace aggression (LeBlanc & Barling, 2005), of
which we only investigated two. It is possible that, for
example, emotion regulation may play a different role
regarding aggression from people external to the
organization who have no legitimate relationship
with the target (e.g., strangers), compared to the role
we have observed it to play with outsiders who have a
legitimate relationship with the target (e.g., clients or
patients). Furthermore, there may even be more fine-
grained differences within each of the main sources of
aggression. For instance, within the ‘‘insiders’’
category, three types of insiders can be distinguished,
each of whom has a different level of power with
relation to the employee: superiors (greater power),
coworkers (equal power), and subordinates (less
power) (Pfeffer & Fong, 2005). These power differ-
ences tend to map on to differences in professional
norms or codes of conduct during interactions, such
that there are likely to be stronger norms during
interactions with those of higher power (Diefendorff
& Greguras, 2009). Stronger norms may mean that
emotion regulation is seen as more of a demand and,
as a result, reappraisal may be less effective for
alleviating strain when interacting with aggressive
insiders of higher power compared with aggressive
insiders of lower power.
Practical contributions
This research has a practical focus on identifying
factors that could help to protect employees from the
negative effects of workplace aggression. In particu-
lar, we focused on emotion regulation, as a factor that
employees could potentially control with relative ease
(e.g., Totterdell & Parkinson, 1999). Employees’ use
of emotion regulation is likely to be constrained
during interactions with legitimate outsiders, but
when interacting with insiders there are less strict
rules about how employees should regulate their
emotions (e.g., Diefendorff et al., 2006), and it is
during these interactions that the strategy of reap-
praisal could prove beneficial as a buffer from the
negative effects of workplace aggression. Interven-
tions designed to increase employees’ use of reapprai-
sal during interactions with organizational insiders
could therefore serve an extremely practical purpose.
One type of intervention that may prove effective is
the formation of implementation intentions (Gallo

et al., 2009). Implementation intentions, also known
as ‘‘if–then’’ plans, automate cognition or action by
linking a chosen event (e.g., aggression) with a given
response (e.g., reappraisal), making the response more
likely to be enacted. A simple intervention of this kind
could thus help employees to increase their use of
reappraisal as a coping response to aggression from
organizational insiders.
With respect to interactions with legitimate out-
siders, in our studies we found that the use of both
reappraisal and suppression strategies exacerbated the
negative effects of outsider aggression and may in fact
have been part of the reason that aggression from
clients and patients had a detrimental impact. Many
service organizations have high expectations that
employees will display particular emotions (Grandey,
2000) and it would not be appropriate to develop
interventions to stop employees from using emotion
regulation in general during interactions with clients.
Instead, organizational-level changes in procedures
and rules, freeing employees from their emotional
labour responsibilities when they are dealing with
clients acting in an aggressive manner, may be needed.
CONCLUSION
Workplace aggression is a genuine concern for
organizations, due to the financial implications of
absenteeism and reduced productivity arising from
deteriorations in employees’ mental and physical
well-being (Ashforth, 1994; Hoel et al., 2001; Kivi-
mäki et al., 2000). This article presents an initial
exploration of the role played by employees’ use of
emotion regulation in determining the effects of
workplace aggression. In doing so, the research
provides preliminary evidence that the strategy of
reappraisal may serve as a useful resource to help
employees cope with aggression originating from
inside their organizations.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aldridge, M. (1994). Unlimited liability? Emotional labour in
nursing and social work. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 722–
728.
Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey
methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet
users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16,
185–210.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human
Relations, 47, 755–778.
Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting
workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 60, 671–692.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment
from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.
WORK AGGRESSION AND EMOTION REGULATION 105
Boyle, M., Koritsas, S., Coles, J., & Stanley, J. (2007). A pilot study
of workplace violence towards paramedics. Emergency Medi-
cine Journal, 24, 760–763.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of
resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57–67.
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construc-
tion: A comparison of merits. The American Psychologist, 39,
214–227.
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation
and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppres-
sion culture-specific? Emotion, 7, 30–48.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of
positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psycholo-
gical Review, 97, 19–35.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2009). Contextualizing
emotional display rules: Examining the roles of targets and
discrete emotions in shaping display rule perceptions. Journal of
Management, 35, 880–898.
Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. (2006). Are
emotional display rules formal job requirements? Examination
of employee and supervisor perceptions. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 79, 273–298.
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related stressors and
burnout, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 61–82.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. (1997). Harassment in the workplace
and the victimization of men, Violence and Victims, 12, 247–
263.
Gallo, I. S., Keil, A., McCulloch, K. C., Rockstroh, B., &
Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Strategic automation of emotion
regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
11–31.
Gibelman, M., & Schervish, P. H. (1997). Who we are: A second
look. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by
questionnaire. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A
new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 5, 95–110.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of
resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer
is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regula-
tion of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 397–418.
Grandey, A., Fisk, G., & Steiner, D. (2005). Must ‘‘service with a
smile’’ be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for
US and French employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
893–914.
Grandey, A. A., Kern, J., & Frone, M. (2007). Verbal abuse from
outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on
emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 63–79.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion
regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression,
and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 224–237.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two
emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relation-
ships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348–362.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation:
Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of
emotion regulation (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
106 NIVEN, SPRIGG, ARMITAGE
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . .
Oh my! A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499–519.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci
approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review
of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 31, 24–44. Retrieved from http://www3.inter
science.wiley.com/journal/122401129/abstract?CRETRY¼1&SR
ETRY¼0
Hershcovis, M. S., Parker, S. K., & Reich, T. C. (2010). The
moderating effect of equal opportunity support and confidence
in grievance procedures on sexual harassment from different
perpetrators. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 415–432.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of
human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hoel, H., Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). The cost of violence/
stress at work and the benefits of a violence/stress-free working
environment. Report commissioned by the International Labour
Office, Geneva. University of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology, Manchester, UK.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and
mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administration
Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.
Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahteera, J. (2000). Workplace
bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 57, 656–660.
Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera,
J., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2003). Workplace bullying and
the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 60, 779–783.
Lance, C. E., LaPointe, J. A., & Fisicaro, S. A. (1994). Tests of
three causal models of halo rater error. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 57, 83–96.
Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985).
Stress and adaptational outcomes: The problem of confounded
measures. The American Psychologist, 40, 770–779.
LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. (2005). Understanding the many
faces of workplace violence. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.),
Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and
targets (pp. 41–63). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and
outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 444–453.
Leymann, J. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at
work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 5, 165–184.
Melamed, S., Ugarten, U., Shirom, A., Kahana, L., Lerman, Y., &
Froom, P. (1999). Chronic burnout, somatic arousal and
elevated salivary cortisol levels. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 46, 591–598.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between
exposure to bullying at work and psychological and
psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state
negative affectivity and generalized self-efficacy. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 43, 397–405.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-
depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1024–1036.
Morris, W. N., & Reilly, N. P. (1987). Toward the self-regulation of
mood: Theory and research. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 215–249.
Newhill, C. E. (1995). Client violence toward social workers: A
practice and policy concern for the 1990s. Social Work, 40, 9–13.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of
coherence as a protective mechanism among targets of work-
place bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13,
128–136.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2005). Building organization theory from
first principles: The self-enhancement motive and understand-
ing power and influence. Organization Science, 16, 372–388.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommendation remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001).
Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-
item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.
Rogers, K., & Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Violence at work: Personal
and organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 2, 63–71.
Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The
effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor
and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 971–978.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality,
and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-
being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and
tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Schat, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Effects of perceived control on
the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 386–402.
Schat, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse
consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The
buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 8, 110–122.
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. New York, NY: J. B.
Lippincott Company.
Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in
customer service roles: Testing a model of emotional labor.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 55–73.
Totterdell, P., & Parkinson, B. (1999). Use and effectiveness of self-
regulation strategies for improving mood in a group of trainee
teachers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 219–
232.
Tracy, S. J., & Tracy, K. (1998). Emotion labor at 911: A case
study and theoretical critique. Journal of Applied Communica-
tion Research, 26, 390–411.
Tschan, F., Rochat, S., & Zapf, D. (2005). It’s not only clients:
Studying emotion work with clients and co-workers with an
event-sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
zational Psychology, 78, 195–220.
Westen, D. (1994). Towards an integrative model of affect
regulation: Applications to social-psychological research. Jour-
nal of Personality, 62, 641–667.
Witmer, D. F., Colman, R. W., & Katzman, S. L. (1999). From
paper-and-pencil to screen-and-keyboard. In S. Jones (Ed.),
Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for
examining the net (pp. 145–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A
review of the literature and some conceptual considerations.
Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237–268.
Original manuscript received June 2010
Revised manuscript received August 2011
First published online January 2012