Emotion more adaptive than the external onesEmotion more adaptive than the external ones

Emotion regulation refers
to an attentional, cognitive, or behavioural attempts to manage which emotions
we have, when and how we experience and express them (Eisenberg, Spinrad, &
Smith, 2004; Gross,
1998b). According to Gross (1998; 2001) theory, regulation
strategies starts with situation selection and continues with situation
modification and attentional deployment. In these three stages people can choose
and modify their environments in order to regulate their emotion inducing events
and then pay attention to special parts of the events. Although these
strategies are very effective, but due to the fact that employees may not have
the chance to select and modify the environment or ignore specific aspects of
the events or situations, these strategies are not mostly beneficial at the
organizations. Therefore, controlling internal process are more adaptive than
the external ones in the organizations (Cropanzano, et al, 2000). The fourth
stage is cognitive change which is the last antecedent-focused strategy of emotion
regulation. In this stage, people select the possible meanings to the events.

Reappraisal is a type of cognitive change which
includes altering the meaning of the event such a way that causes the changes
in the person’s emotional response to that event (Gross, 2002). According to
the previous findings, reappraisal may attenuates angers effect on intention to
unethical behaviours. The final stage, response modulation, is influential for regulating
the emotions expression after they fully produced. Suppression is a forms of
emotion regulation which enact in this stage. Suppression refers to attempts to
decline ongoing emotion-expressive behaviour (Gross, 2002). Our tries to hide
our anger when we are angry toward an employer is an example of suppression in
work environment. Another way for regulating the emotions is striving to
experience a special emotion (i.e. emotional preferences) in the particular
context (Kim, Ford, Mauss & Tamir, 2015). Kim et al. (2015) believe that
emotional preferences are different with emotional experiences due to the fact
that emotional preferences refer to the desired end-states, but emotional
experiences reflect current conditions. Regarding to this fact, emotional preferences
could form emotional experiences and their subsequent behaviours. For instance,
Tamir et al. (2014) demonstrated that gamblers sometimes try to increase their anger,
because it causes them to take more risks. Additional studies show that anger
low intensity anger has positive effects on individuals’ behaviours when they
need to confront another and therefore it could be pleasant in certain
situations (Glomb,
2002; Frijda, 1986; Lerner & Tiedens, 2006; Keltner & Gross, 1999;
20). These
findings are consistent with instrumental approach rather than hedonic,
addressing that psychologically healthier individuals prefer unpleasant
emotions as much as pleasant ones depends on the goals that they currently
pursue.According to this instrumental model, preferring anger could
promote performance,
especially when an employee is preparing to a competition or a
confrontational task
(e.g., Tamir & Ford, 2012a). In the other words, in some situations, people
prefer to be angry for making changes to better clarify their needs and reach intrapersonal
goals (Keltner & Gross, 1999). Interestingly, researches have shown that
anger as a negative emotion does not always cause lack of happiness or
psychologically unhealthy issues. For instance, Kim et al. (2015) showed that psychologically
healthier individuals have stronger preferences for anger when they perceive
confrontational demands, but when they perceive collaborative demands, they
prefer more happiness.  Empathy to

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

One of the health psychological functions which help
people to share their feelings and thoughts with other people and show more
altruistic and cooperative behaviours toward others is empathy (Cropanzano
et al, 2017).
Some social psychology researchers have highlighted the role of empathy in
morality (e.g., Batson 2009; Eisenberg and Fabes 1990; Tyler et al. 1997;
Wispe´ 1986).
Yip and Schweitzer (2016) found that empathy mediates the relationship between anger
and deception. Low levels of empathy to organizations have strong impact on the
link between anger and unethical behaviour. People who are angry have more
intention to engage in unethical behaviours depending on their levels of
empathy to organization. Additional evidences showed that empathy increases
employees’ carefulness about justice judgments and decline their intention to
blame victims because of their own moral conditions (e.g., Aderman et
al., 1974); Patient and Skarlicki, 2010). In another study, Cropanzano,
Massaro & Becker (2017) indicated that individuals endeavour for applying
justice rules is related to their cognitive and affective empathy to another
person or organization, in order to that the probability of their effort to
apply justice rules increase when they experience cognitive and affective
empathy to the organization. Cognitive empathy refers to understanding the
other peoples feeling and thinking through deliberative thought. While,
affective empathy is sharing the emotional experiences with other people such
as coworkers in the organization (Walter, 2012).