Suppressing and regulating are not the same. The approaches that actually work.
Labelling what rises precisely, as in 'I am angry because I felt dismissed' rather than 'I am annoyed', lowers the intensity. Undifferentiated discomfort offers nothing to work with, while a name reveals what the reaction is about and creates a point to respond to. A larger vocabulary for distinguishing feelings makes this work better.
Approaches to emotion split broadly in two: suppressing outward expression, and reinterpreting the situation so the feeling itself changes. Suppression may look successful while internal arousal stays the same or rises, and others notice the discomfort anyway. Reappraisal producing better outcomes is a finding that recurs across studies.
Seeing a situation differently does not mean insisting a bad thing is good. It is closer to checking whether another explanation of someone's behaviour is possible, whether this will feel the same size in a month, and whether you selected the worst available reading. Distorting facts returns later, so widening the range of plausible interpretations is the right scope.
At very high arousal, no reappraisal works well. There, lower physical arousal before trying to change your thinking. Stepping away briefly, exhaling slowly, or washing your hands in cold water genuinely help. Postponing an important conversation or reply until arousal drops is almost always better.
Regulating emotion well does not mean not feeling it. Being angry in a situation that warrants anger is normal, and it can be information. The aim is that feelings do not decide behaviour entirely. Reaching a state of feeling nothing through continuous suppression is not good regulation but a signal worth checking.
Each button runs this keyword on that search engine