gv-gw-v-wy-gnv
H‘ ,1 .

- "um."

1.. :— .J‘o;.! .».f ‘43 1.40 . 3.51%.. 263 ”“1331 (I. .
, a . W‘s wt: . 3.
fi..?fi%. 1.? . .{ffir

314:.

w...-

.: 01

. .u 1:...) fl:
.HsflVé? “at
.1... z... .93. ..

a.

3

 

35...:
‘ i I5
14..
. .2

..«..:. a... ~
. : x
24!.

. 4 . x... E: .
5.70.43 .1.L-JW\
1‘... 3 .524 If».
3?! («www.fou‘fiwiwfiMiu“ .
v1.4.5
2; 3,
55 d \.». a.
#:3322 Lam". .
329.2, ".9359. p...

.Ez.&m~m~h. .
.. ”mam. ;

2.3...14‘ .5 yr:

’» 1 .v . A
.3.
«A: :3. J.-.

1
Tags” a»; ‘
a; .4. V
fl 3
‘ .
u t}, :2 a... 1%.“...
x . . l ..
1.13:“ 414~\9nt_.adu:t.. Unfrfianiwuuunr L.
If . 3: .52.... A 1 a3 .1: .
4.53.95. ”02.3.32! .. :2. {I11
:53. .
ff: ‘
‘T‘.~..I.£ hr.
. . . Du. .
.21:
5.) 239.5... .

13,. «.35. 31!...
32135:...{c5ixlxg
A , ..:‘1.,..I:3t$5§4
:55. 1.44215 2... ,
J .utaai .533! 1‘

» 191 I is.) an
I .

I‘lla. ’.
3525“?
.2491111...

.litu $9.... helil£ui
.3 tux-s. I. . #11158.
{CIA-1,: a? a: 7;),

. Aug}. 7" \

Jul '(§SII\ 5”.
. . 36.1.; it...
...:.7~n)fl.f.35 32.22.} ‘

uni-eggxfl.

a») 1.1»:

. t.

.Kquiz.
7....

. .3 ,

a! ... . I. .
lid“ 5.5.. 4:...» 1) 1&7». .,,.

y, In ‘ .l $.43
‘ (:3 $3.110.

‘ x. .6 .l .
41;! 5. I}, p I. 2‘
4.. .92} {3th 5:53.“: fi¢fé§qil
, . 1 a a .z
, . - an" i

.53.!

354111155.
)1}. Eda? -

eh . 3‘

«23:3?! 1
..
. .y -' V ‘ I] lrflv‘v
. A .lin’AI‘ .,
.2! V:..7I|.S..{\7
. {(7

.IS‘. ..
«cit-wfia

3 a r:
.f s .

:5. . .Cn...‘ Atv .
I?) v’iififilof:

{WESlS

rCT”

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

TO QUIT OR NOT TO QUIT72 THE IMPLICATIONS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH POLICY ON JOB APPLICANTS

presented by
Elizabeth Jean Daisey

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of Arts degree in Communication

WVé/e '

- Major Professor’s Signature
{3/ l0 (09

Date

 

 

MSU Is an Aflinnatlve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

.o-v--o-u-l-o—--‘-.—A-._.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRCIDaIeDue.Indd-p.1

TO QUIT OR NOT TO QUIT?: THE IMPLICATIONS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH POLICY ON JOB APPLICANTS

By

Elizabeth Jean Dalsey

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2006

ABSTRACT

TO QUIT OR NOT TO QUIT?: THE IMPLICATIONS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH POLICY ON JOB APPLICANTS

By

ElizabethJean Dalsey

This study addressed the effect of an organization’s non—smoking policy, at work
and extended to include home, on job applicants’ attraction to an organization.
Hypothesis I predicted that participants who smoked would be less attractive to an
organization with a non-smoking policy. Hypothesis 2 predicted that job applicants
would be more attracted to an organization low in severity of a non-smoking policy
compared to an organization high in severity. Lastly, hypothesis 3 predicted that
organizational assistance would moderate the relationship between severity and
organizational attraction. Two hundred and ninety six students from communication and
advertising courses at a large Midwestern university participated voluntarily; they read a
job description and information about an organization’s non-smoking policy. Their
attraction levels were assessed before and after being informed of the non-smoking
policy. Results from this study showed that attraction decreased when the participants
were informed of the non-smoking policy. Additionally, smoking status and
organizational assistance had significant effects on attraction, while severity of non-
smoking policy did not. Non-smokers had a bigger decrease in attraction. High
organizational assistance led to smaller decreases in attraction. Further analysis revealed
that individual differences (smoking sensitivity and employer controllability) also

influenced perceptions of organizational attraction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This would not have been possible without the support and guidance of my
Professor Hee Sun Park. Her insight and wisdom have been invaluable. Additionally, I
would like to thank my family, for their love and support throughout this process. Lastly,
I would like to thank my friends, especially the lawyers. Thanks for always believing in

my work and for knowing that nothing is actually ever lost.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION ................................... . ................................................ 1
Smoking in the Workplace .................................................................. 3
Job Applicant’s Attraction to an Organization ........................................... 5
CURRENT STUDY ................................................................................ 10
Employment Threat ........................................................................ 12
Susceptibility ................................................................................. 12
Hypothesis 1 ................................................................................. l4
Perceived Employment Severity .......................................................... 14
Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................. l6
Organizational Assistance ................................................................. 16
Hypothesis 3 ................................................................................. 18
METHOD ............................................................................................ 19
Design ....................................................................................... l9
Participants .................................................................................. 19
Procedure .................................................................................... 2]
Manipulation Checks ...................................................................... 22
. Order ............................................................................. 22
Employment Severity ........................................................... 22
Organizational Assistance ....................................................... 24
Measures ..................................................................................... 26
Organizational Attractiveness .................................................. 26
Employer Controllability ....................................................... 27
Smoking Sensitivity ............................................................. 28
Smoking Sensation Self-Efficacy................................................28
Open-Ended ...................................................................... 29
RESULTS ............................................................................................ 30
Overview ..................................................................................... 30
Main Analysis ............................................................................... 30
Additional Analysis ........................................................................ 32
Organizational Assistance .................................................................. 32
Organizational Assistance and Order ..................................................... 32
Regression Analysis ........................................................................ 33
Open-Ended ................................................................................. 37
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 40
Practical Implications ....................................................................... 47

iv

Limitations .................................................................................. 49

Future Research ............................................................................ 50
Conclusion .................................................................................. 50
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 79
Appendix A: Job Advertisement .......................................................... 79
Appendix B: Additional information .................................................... 80
Appendix C: Survey Questions ......................................................... 82
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 86

Table 1.

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

LIST OF TABLES

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ........................................... 52
Moderated Multiple Regression for Decrease in Attraction .................... 53
All Participants’ Responses across Questions 1 through 3 .................... 54

Example Answers of Positive Opinions About the Non-Smoking Policy and
the Likelihood of Applying and Accepting a Job Offer ........................ 55

Example Answers Addressing Negative Beliefs About the Non-Smoking
Policy and the Likelihood of Applying and Accepting a Job Offer ........... 57

Example Answers Addressing Negative Beliefs About the Non-Smoking
Policy and the Likelihood of Applying and Accepting a Job Offer .......... 59

All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 2 (how did the non-smoking policy affect your likelihood of
accepting a job offer?) ............................................................... 61

All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 3 (in general, what do you think about a non-smoking policy in the
workplace?) ........................................................................... 63

All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 4 (are there other behaviors that you would quit in order to get a
job?) .................................................................................... 65

Positive Responses of Non-Smokers across Questions 1 through 3) ......... 66

Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 1
(how or why did the non-smoking policy affect your intentions to apply?)..67

Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 2
(how did the non-smoking policy affect your likelihood of accepting a job
offer? ................................................................................... 69

Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 3
(in general, what do you think about a non-smoking policy in the

workplace?) ......................................................................... 7 1

Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open—Ended Question 4
(are there other behaviors that you would quit in order to get a job?) ....... 73

vi

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

LIST OF FIGURES

Two way interaction between severity and employer controllability of
smoking behaviors for predicting decrease in organizational attraction..74

Two way interaction between severity and smoking sensitivity for
predicting decrease in organizational attraction .............................. 75

Two way interaction between perceived organizational support and
employer controllability of smoking behaviors for predicting decrease in
organizational attraction .......................................................... 76

Three way interaction among severity, pos, and smoking sensitivity for
predicting decrease in organizational attraction .............................. 77

Three way interaction among pos, employer controllability of smoking

behaviors, and smoking sensitivity for predicting decrease in
organizational attraction .......................................................... 78

vii

INTRODUCTION

As a result of increasing healthcare costs coupled with Americans’ concern with
health, the divide between employees’ private and professional lives has blurred. The
issue of healthy lifestyles inevitably permeates areas outside the home, eventually
seeping into the workplace. As healthcare costs [continue to rise, employers are taking
preventive action, monitoring, and even restricting employees’ off-duty behaviors that do
not coincide with employers’ interests (Anderson, 2003). Employers’ concern over rising
healthcare costs extends to encompass new hires. Individuals’ choices regarding health
matters not only affect them directly, but the consequences of their actions extend beyond
their family to employers and also to society, given that employers are often responsible
for providing employees with health insurance coverage.

Providing health care coverage is less expensive for healthy low risk individuals
than for unhealthy high risk individuals. A significant factor driving costs for
organizations can be attributable to medical costs due to preventable health risks
(Anderson, 2003). Although some illnesses are unavoidable, some lifestyle behaviors
such as diet, exercise, wearing protective gear when exercising, and not smoking are
considered as preventive ones that can reduce a person’s health risk. Adopting healthy
behaviors not only benefits the individual, but consequently helps to reduce healthcare
costs for employers. Over the course of employment, there is approximately a 25%
savings in health care costs for employees who are able to reduce their risk level
(Edington & Musich, 2003).

To counteract health care costs, employers may consider various options such as

increasing coinsurance rates for employees who engage in risky and unhealthy behaviors,

requiring employees to refrain from such behaviors for the purpose of remaining
employed, refusing to provide insurance coverage, or refusing to hire high risk job
applicants. Another option available to employers is to create and implement pro-social
health policies which are consistent with current federal or state law, requiring
compliance from both existing employees and new hires. In recent years, employers have
been creating organizational polices to prevent their employees from engaging in both
on-the-job and off-the-job behaviors that could negatively impact their health and their
job performance (Landman, 2000; Sugarman, 2003). For example, employers can restrict
employees’ personal relationship with coworkers and subordinates, civil and political
activities (i.e., political stance), leisure activities (i.e., skydiving), moonlights (i.e.,
working for a competitor) and daily activities (i.e., smoking) (Sugarman, 2003).
Organizations can also have policies dictating ineligible new hires.

Throughout the job seeking and interview process, applicants and employers
exchange information to gain a greater understanding of the other party. As the process
continues applicants receive more comprehensive information regarding the organization,
the organization's culture, and the benefits offered, gaining a holistic view of the
organization (J ablin, 1987). This paper explores job applicants’ perceptions of a potential
employer that has a non-smoking policy at the workplace. Specifically, the study
addresses how job applicants’ (both smokers’ and non—smokers’) perceptions potentially
change after receiving information about the organization’s non-smoking policy. It is
expected that information containing various elements and consequences of a non-
smoking policy will have implications for how job applicants perceive the policy and

consequently their evaluation of the organization.

Smoking in the Workplace

Although many health issues plague organizations, smoking is becoming one of
the major culprits of increased healthcare costs. Smoking causes 400,000 deaths annually,
making it the leading cause of preventable deaths (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2004; US. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). The health
consequences of tobacco include mortality, cancer, lung disease and cardiovascular
effects. Although the percentage of smokers has declined over the last forty years, 22.5%
of all adults in the United States still continue to smoke (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2004). Nationally, the costs associated with smoking are $100 billion dollars
in direct healthcare costs and $140 billion is spent on lost productivity. The consequences
of smoking are not limited to individual smokers. Families of smokers are at an increased
risk for developing medical conditions due to secondhand smoke. The consequences of
individuals' smoking behaviors are also felt by the smoker’s employer. In addition to
health insurance coverage, the indirect costs borne by employers include lost productivity
and absenteeism (Landman, 2000). Therefore, organizations may strive to employ
healthy, low risk individuals or assist high risk employees to become lower risk.
Organizational alignment is not only of concern for current employees, but for future job
applicants as well.

An employer can take proactive steps to help encourage healthy habits. With
respect to smoking, employers can help their existing employees, as well as, new hires
throughout the quitting process. Adding the organization into the equation for behavioral
change creates an additional way to encourage individuals to stop smoking. Differences

can exist in terms of the consequences imposed on smokers by their employers. While

some employers may not do anything about the types of behaviors, resulting in higher
costs for insurance coverage, other employers can create and enforce organizational
policies mandating new and existing employees to adopt healthier behaviors. These
behaviors would have to fall under the realm of behaviors that employers have discretion
over in order for a policy to not infringe on employees’ legal rights. Currently, twenty
states in the United States of America do not have laws protecting smokers. In these
states, smokers are not a protected class; employers are within their legal rights to make
employment decisions based on smoking behavior.

In 2004, a healthcare company in Michigan, Weyco, instituted a non-smoking
policy. The CEO wanted a healthier workforce to cut insurance costs and created a non-
smoking policy for current employees and new hires on and off the job. Michigan is one
of the twenty states that do not have laws preventing employers from firing employees
based on their decision to smoke even if it is not during work hours (Shultz, Lee, & Lacy,
2005). Since 2004, many employers have followed suit, implementing various non-
smoking policies to combat high insurance costs. Kalamazoo Valley Community College
in Michigan has decided to include a question about smoking behavior on job
applications so that smokers will not be hired for full-time jobs, although the current
employees who smoke will not be fired (Shultz et al., 2005). An Omaha transport firm
has stopped hiring smokers in seven states (Young, 2005). The airline industry has also
taken steps in instituting smoking policy. Now several airline companies including
Southwest Airlines refuse to hire smokers (Landman, 2000; Sugarman, 2003).

A message sent by an organization mandating the adoption of a healthier behavior

or the cessation of an unhealthy behavior of a potentially can carry more weight with job

applicants and existing employees than a message only addressing health consequences
of that behavior. Additionally, an organizational health policy may not only affect the
behavior targeted by the policy, but also influence other cognitive, affective, and
behavioral elements relevant to organizations such as organizational attractiveness. The
current study attempts to shed light on how job applicants appraise organizational
messages on a non-smoking policy and how organizations can achieve and maintain high
levels of organizational attractiveness. Organizations choosing to adopt such health
policies may wish to do to so in a favorable light, making sure not to discourage qualified
applicants from applying.
Job Applicants’ Attraction toward an Organization

According to Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model, the
perceived similarity between individuals and their work environment is one of the major
factors influencing job applicants’ attraction to and selection into an organization.
Organizational attractiveness encompasses job seekers’ assessment and pursuit of a
potential pace to work (Highhouse, Lievens & Sinare, 2003). Furthermore, organization
attraction has also been defined in terms of a match or fit between an individual and an
organization (Chatman, 1991). Attraction to a given organization is rooted in an
individual’s expectation of congruency between themselves and the organization.

Specifically, individuals evaluate how well their personalities, attitudes, and
values match the organization’s values, goals, structures, processes, and culture when
making vocational choices (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). The match between
individuals and organizations is formally known as person-organizational fit (PO fit),

which refers to “the congruency between patterns of organizational values and patterns of

individual values, defined here as what an individual values in an organization. . . . the
value system in a particular organizational context affect that individual’s behaviors and
attitudes” (Chatman, 1991, p.459). A good fit or match between an individual and an
organization has been associated with adjusting more quickly to the new organization,
higher levels of job satisfaction and decreased turnover rates (Chatman, 1991; Schneider,
1987). Furthermore, a match between an organization’s values and an individual leads to
better performance (Schneider, 1987) and a greater likelihood to remain in the
organization (Chatman, 1989). In the case of actual as well as potential job seekers,
studies have shown that PO fit influenced attraction to an organization (Bretz, Ash, &
Dreher, 1989; Keon, Latack, & Wanous, 1982) and job acceptance intentions (Bretz &
Judge, 1994; Judge & Bretz, 1992). When assessing graduating college students’
preferences in future organizations, Judge and Bretz (1992) revealed that students favored
organizations that shared similar values to their own. For example, ecological policies
and practices of an organization can also contribute to applicant’s attraction to an
organization (Bauer & Aiman-Smith, 1996; Aiman-Smith, Bauer & Cable, 2001).
Regardless of an organization’s actual purpose for instituting a non-smoking
policy, a job applicant’s perception of the non-smoking policy can be independent of the
organization’s intentions. A discord could exist between an organization’s rationale for
implementing a non-smoking policy and an applicant’s perception of the policy. The
existence of a non-smoking policy in the workplace could be perceived by job applicants
either as a form of punishment, threatening one’s freedom or as an incentive, a form of

motivation. Job seekers or applicants may evaluate the match (e. g., PO fit) between

themselves and an organization based on what they perceive the values and culture of the
organization to be.

Related to the literature on vocational choice, three possible situations can be
inferred for the relationship between job applicants and an organization regarding a non-
smoking policy of the organization. First, job applicants’ preferences, values, and views
regarding the non-smoking policy match those of the organization, which result in job
applicants’ increased attraction to the organization as a potential employer. The existence
of a non-smoking policy implemented in the workplace and extended to include at home
behavior, could be viewed by applicants as an incentive; a form of encouragement and
support. From an organization’s standpoint, the adoption of a non-smoking could be an
inducement, “deliberately modifying attributes for the explicit purpose of enhancing the
attractiveness of a job to potential applicants” (Rynes & Barber, 1990, p.301). As an
inducement, a non-smoking policy would be a deliberate attempt by an organization to
demonstrate encouragement and supportiveness to appear more attractive to those who
may not favor smoking. In Aiman-Smith et al. (2001 ), ecological rating was the strongest
predictor of job applicants’ attraction to an organization. It is possible that applicants who
view a non-smoking policy as a form of environmental protection efforts by the
organization would view the organization as more attractive. In this case, the presence of
a non-smoking policy conveys to job applicants an organization’s concern for employees’
well-being. In addition, some studies that have examined job applicants’ perception about
employment drug testing showed that job seekers perceived drug testing to be more
acceptable than other commonly used personnel procedures such as personality testing

(Rosse, Ringer, & Miller, 1996). Furthermore, upon reading a fictitious job opportunity,

undergraduate students actually preferred an employer with a drug testing policy more
strongly than an employer with no such policy (Mastrangelo, 1997).

Another possibility for the relationship between job applicants and an
organization regarding a non-smoking policy of the organization is that job applicants’
preferences, values, and views regarding the non-smoking policy as well as those of the
organization are not consequential for the job applicants’ attraction toward the
organization as a potential employer. In other words, this particular match or mismatch
does not matter for job applicants’ attraction to the organization. Especially for non-
smokers, because it does not apply directly to them, the non-smoking policy may not be
relevant, if they do not have strong anti-smoking attitudes.

Finally, a non-smoking policy of an organization may become a reason for a
mismatch between job applicants and the organization. It is possible that job applicants’
preferences, values, and views regarding the non-smoking policy are different from or
opposite to those of the organization, which can result in job applicants’ decreased
attraction to the organization as a potential employer. Unlike the studies that reported the
positive influence of employment drug testing on potential job seekers’ attitudes about
the organization (e.g., Mastrangelo, 1997; Rosse et al., 1996), other studies reported that
the existence of employment drug testing lowers potential job seekers’ attraction to the
organization and intentions to apply (e. g., Crant & Bateman, 1990; Murphy, Thornton, &
Reynolds, 1990).

Although created to encourage healthy habits and pro—social behaviors, persuasive
health communication may bring about adverse, unintentional side effects. While

designed to influence individuals in the intended direction (i.e., quit smoking),

individuals may perceive persuasive attempts as unfair restrictions on their free
behaviors. When a free behavior is perceived to be threatened or is actually eliminated,
the individual may attempt to restore the threatened freedom, experiencing psychological
reactance “a motivational state directed toward the reestablishment of free behaviors
which have been eliminated or threatened” (Brehm, 1966, p. 9). Reactance denotes the
tendency of individuals not only to reject, disobey or dismiss persuasive communication
but also to change actual behaviors in the reverse direction. As stated by Brehm (1966)
the four factors influencing the degree of reactance are; 1) the importance of the
behavior, 2) the expectation that the individual possess the freedom to begin with, 3) the
magnitude of the threat and 4) the implications of the threat on other freedoms. In a state
of psychological reactance an individual will attempt to affirm the free behavior by
evaluating the costs associated with its restoration. Research focused on youths and anti-
tobacco policies and campaigns showed that adolescents perceived such attempts as
restrictions of freedom and autonomy (Unger et al., 1999). Extending previous research
on reactance theory, the implementation of a non—smoking campaign in the workplace,
extended to home, if perceived as a threat to one’s freedom, could potentially lead to
reactance in job applicants. A non-smoking policy in the workplace even though intended
to encourage employee health through smoking cessation, could actually be interpreted as
a threat to one’s freedom to engage in a legal behavior. Despite the negative health
consequences attributable to smoking, smoking is legal over the age of eighteen.
Embedded in an employer’s role, is the power to influences others. According to
French and Raven (1959) the amount of power that a social agent is capable of, is derived

from an enduring relation or dependency with another person. An employer can be seen

as a social agent upon whom persons of lesser power are dependent upon; therefore
employers have the power to influence others. French and Raven (1959) typology of
power identifies five types: legitimate, reward, coercive, referent and expertise.
Legitimate power is based on one’s title or position occupied. This type of power is
grounded in formal authority. Coercive power comes from the leader’s ability to sanction
or punish for failing to comply. Reward power results from the leader’s ability to control
and distribute both tangible and intangible rewards. Referent power results from
identification with the leader. Lastly, expertise power is based on a leader’s special skills
and knowledge. Rahim and Buntzman (1989) demonstrated that referent and legitimate
power were more effective for gaining compliance compared to coercive and reward
power bases. Additionally, Yukl and Falbe (1991) revealed that organizational
commitment was positively associated with expert and referent power while negatively
associated with coercive power.

From the perspectives of psychological reactance connected with organizational
power types, it is possible that individuals may question the legitimacy of an attempt of
an organization to regulate its employees’ behaviors in the realm of health. Psychological
reactance in the form of disfavoring the organization may not happen if a non-smoking
policy is viewed as legitimate based on employers’ right to control employees’ behaviors.
If a non—smoking policy is based on the organization’s coercive power, however,
individuals may be more likely to disfavor the organization.

Current Study
Ultimately, a non-smoking policy in the workplace hopes to encourage healthy

habits while simultaneously reducing healthcare costs for employers. Employers may

10

have considerable latitude in how to enforce a non-smoking policy and how a non-
smoking policy is communicated to job applicants. Depending on the degree of
employment severity and organizational assistance, employers may maintain or lose
applicants’ consideration and attraction to the organization. A non-smoking policy,
although directly relevant to job applicants whosmoke, the implications of such a policy
can extend beyond the susceptible group to include the entire applicant pool.

Traditional health campaigns target a specific behavior and target audience by
focusing on the health consequences of that behavior on a specified audience (W itte,
1992). Additional consequences other than health, however, can also be brought about
when an organizational context is added to the promotion of healthy behaviors.
Organizations have increased their efforts in promoting health for their employees, often
in a form of workplace health promotions (Gemignani, 1997; Pelletier, 1999). In addition
to the health outcomes of interest, a workplace policy on a health matter may provide an
organization with desirable outcomes such as maintaining or improving applicants’
perception of organization’s attractiveness and prestige and increasing qualified
applicants’ job pursuit intention (Hunnicutt, 2001; Schaeffer, Snelling, Stevenson, &
Karch, 1994). On the other hand, a workplace policy on a health matter may result in
undesirable outcomes such as employees' and job applicants' negative view of the
organization and bad publicity (Zoller, 2004).

Besides making employees healthier, a health policy has the ability to heighten or
weaken employees’ and new hires' relationships with the organization impacting
organizational attractiveness, satisfaction, work effort and turnover intention (Goetzel &

Ozminkowski, 2000). Assuming that organizations wish to attract the most qualified

ll

applicants; organizations would hope that a health policy would make the workforce
healthier while increasing job applicants’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness. In
the current paper, how a non-smoking policy affects all job applicants’ attraction to an
organization is examined.
Employment Threat

Threats can exist in the workplace to discourage certain behaviors and enforce
rules of conduct. Perceived threat is comprised of two components; perceived
susceptibility and perceived severity. Collectively these two elements interact to instill
fear leading to message appraisal (Witte, 1992). According to research in health
communication, a health threat is comprised of individuals’ perceptions of perceived
susceptibility and severity with respect to contracting a given disease or illness
(Rosenstock, 1974; Witte 1992). When applied to the workplace, perceived employment
threat encompasses perceived severity and susceptibility related to getting a job. From an
organizational standpoint, perceived threat pertains to employees’ perceptions of the
current health policy requiring behavioral change for employment. In this study,
employment threat is defined as a non-smoking policy. The threat, an organizational
health policy, can be seen as a means of support or as a way to discipline future
employees. Greer and Labig (1987) define discipline as “the attempt to reduce the
frequency of a particular behavior through the application of various forms of
punishment” (p. 509). Depending on how the policy is perceived, it is expected that
organizational attractiveness will differ.

Susceptibility. In the health context, researchers and practitioners target a specific

group who are susceptible to the negative health consequences of a certain behavior. The

12

notion of susceptibility, however, can vary with whether a given individual believes
themselves to be at risk (J anz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1974; Witte, 1992, 1994).
One smoker may perceive herself as susceptible to the negative consequences of
smoking, whereas another smoker may not believe that he is susceptible, no matter what
doctors and researchers report. Health researchers have demonstrated that perceptions of
susceptibility contribute to message appraisal (Rosenstock, 1974; Witte, 1992). A degree
of susceptibility is necessary in creating motivation, leading to action on the part of the
individual. A non-smoking policy has greater relevance to smokers, therefore it should
have a greater impact on their attraction to the organization.

In an organizational context, however, susceptibility can be more clear-cut: it is
either existent or not, based on the focus of an organizational policy. In the workplace,
susceptibility is not defined by the individual’s belief, but defined by the organization
based on engagement in a given behavior. A policy will explicitly identify which segment
of the workforce and applicant pool is susceptible to the employment threat. An
employee’s or applicant’s employment susceptibility varies not based on the frequency of
the threatened behavior or years of engagement, but depends on the focus of the current
organizational health policy.

Employment threat susceptibility can only be altered once a new policy is
introduced into the organization focused on another behavior. In the case of a non-
smoking policy, perceived susceptibility dichotomy is defined in terms of smoking
behavior. Regardless of the amount of cigarettes smoked, job applicants are susceptible to

the employment threat if they smoke at all. On the other hand, job applicants who do not

13

engage in the behavior (i.e., smoking) are not susceptible to the threat. Employment
threat susceptibility depends exclusively on the threatened behavior.

Individuals are differentially attracted to different organizations based on their
needs, interests, preferences, and personality. When individuals are searching for ajob,
some candidates place more emphasis on certain job features while deemphasizing other
aspects; for example, pay preferences (Cable & Judge, 1994), reward systems (Bretz,
Ash, & Dreher, 1989) an organization’s culture (Schaubroeck, Ganster & Jones, 1998)
and the founder’s goals (Schneider, Goldstein, Harold, & Smith, 1995). For smokers, the
existence of a non-smoking policy does not facilitate their smoking needs and is not
consistent with their current smoking behavior. Thus, it is expected that smokers,
compared to non-smokers, are less likely to see an organization with a non-smoking
policy as an attractive place to work.

Hypothesis 1: Non-smokers will be more attracted to an organization with
a non-smoking policy than smokers.

Perceived employment severity. Another component of employment threat
regarding the existence of a non-smoking policy is severity. An organization has control
over the magnitude of severity regarding how an organizational health policy is
communicated to job applicants. Perceived severity is defined as an individual’s
perception regarding the seriousness of the non—smoking policy as it relates to one’s
employment. Severity can be varied by the organization based on how the policy is
implemented (e. g., voluntary or mandatory) and the consequences imposed on the new

employee. Depending on the amount of threat an organization wants to present, severity

l4

can be highlighted or minimized in order to promote and maintain a desired behavior
both in the workplace and at home.

Impacting job applicants’ perceptions of severity is how the policy is
implemented; voluntary or mandatory. Mandatory adherence to a non-smoking policy is
likely to be followed by a more serious penalty for failing to comply. That is, when an
organization stipulates employment termination for lack of adherence to the non-smoking
policy, job applicants can perceive such consequence of the policy as severe, compared to
other consequences such as reduction in pay or no disciplinary action (e.g., Truxillo,
Bauer, & Paronto, 2002).

For the purpose of reducing frequencies of the threatened behavior, a non-
smoking policy high in severity may be more effective. Greer and Labig (1987) reported
that higher intensity disciplinary actions at the workplace were associated with a greater
reduction in the threatened behavior. Fear appeal approaches in health communication
postulate that the degree of severity combined with perceptions of vulnerability creates
motivation, which lead to message appraisal (W itte, 1992).

When it comes to emotional reactions and attraction to organizations, however, a
non—smoking policy high in severity may be less effective. Greer and Labig (1987)
reported that the intensity of disciplinary actions was related negatively to pleasantness of
delivery of discipline and also negatively to perceived appropriateness of discipline.
Additionally, Truxillo et al.'s (2002) study on an alcohol policy revealed that compared to
coerced or monitored policy requirements, voluntary treatment was perceived as fairer
and increased organizational attractiveness. Thus, differing degrees of severity is

expected to yield different perceptions of organizational attractiveness. Specifically, it is

15

hypothesized that a high severity non-smoking policy results in a greater reduction in
attraction to an organization than a low severity non—smoking policy.

Hypothesis 2: Job applicants will be more attracted to an organization low
in severity of non-smoking policy than to an organization
high in severity of non-smoking policy.

Organizational Assistance

Even when organizations implement a non-smoking policy characterized as high
in employment severity, there may be a way for organizations to attract qualified job
applicants, reducing the potential negative effect of severity. Organizations may provide
various incentives and helpful programs to assist those who are targeted by the non-
smoking policy. Organizations that are perceived as supportive can be desirable to job
applicants as they would want to be treated well when they get hired. The existence of an
organizational health policy provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the organization
cares about current employees’ and job applicants’ well-being and values their
contribution to the organization. Job applicants may make inferences regarding the
reasoning and/or motives behind the policies and programs implemented by an
organization. When the organization provides highly supportive assistance that is
beneficial to the employees who are targeted by the non-smoking policy, the organization
may be able to avoid undesirable attribution about its non—smoking policy (e.g., the
organization only cares about money and wants to fire smokers to reduce its health care
costs).

Organizations are perceived as supportive when organizations are willing to

reward favorable efforts, value employees’ contributions, and show sincere concern for

16

employees’ well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Employees
who think they receive a greater amount of organizational support tend to have higher
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, positive mood at work, and stronger
intentions to stay in the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). When employees
receive favorable treatment from their organizations, they feel compelled to reciprocate
the favorable treatment and want to act in accordance with what is best for the
organization (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001).

When examining the supportiveness of an organizational assistance program, one
needs to consider a possibility that, for a given organizational assistance program, job
applicants and employees may differ from top management for their evaluation of how
supportive the assistance program is to the job applicants and employees. That is, what
top management considers as supportive and beneficial to employees may not be
perceived likewise by job applicants. Thus, when evaluating supportiveness of
organizational assistance, the focus needs to be on the perception of the potential or
current recipients of organizational assistance.

It is expected that organizational assistance may moderate the effect of
employment severity on attraction to the organization, in such a way that when an
organization provides highly supportive assistance beneficial to employees, severity of
non-smoking policy will have less negative impact on attraction to the organization than
when an organization provides assistance perceived as non-beneficial to employees.

Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced:

17

Hypothesis 3: The effect of severity of non-smoking policy on job applicants’
attraction to a company will vary with the perceived organizational

assistance.

18

Method

Design

The current study used a 2 (severity: high versus low) x 2 (organizational
assistance: high versus low) between—subjects design. On the questionnaire, research
participants answered if they were smokers. Then, they were given an organization’s job
advertisement and responded to items assessing their attraction toward the organization
as a future employer. Next, the participants were given one of four descriptions of non-
smoking policy varying in the levels of severity and organizational assistance. Then,
participants responded to items assessing their attraction level to the company again. The
manipulation materials and questionnaire items are listed in Appendices B and C.
Participants

All participants were recruited from undergraduate classes in Communication or
Advertising at Michigan State University. A student sample was chosen because this
population will face job search and employment decisions soon. Two hundred and ninety
six students participated in the experiment in exchange of receiving course credit, if
available. The participants were between the ages of 18 and 49 (M = 21.38, SD = 3.02).
Of the sample, White/Caucasian accounted for 68.5%, African American descent 15.9%,
Hispanic descent 3.0, Asian American descent 3.4, mixed decent 4.4%, and 4.7%
classified themselves as other. Additionally, seniors accounted for 56.1%, juniors 31.4%,
sophomores 6.4% and freshman and graduates both accounted for 3%.

From the sample, 17.6% (n=52) of participants identified themselves as smokers,
a little short of the current percentage of adult smokers (22.5%) in the United States

(Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004). Of the smokers, 40.4% were males,

19

82.7% were White/Caucasian, and 88.5% were between the ages of 19 and 23.
Additionally questions were asked of smokers to identify what purpose smoking servers,
their frequency of smoking and if they had tried quitting and through what method.
Smokers were asked “Do you smoke more on the weekdays, weekends or social
situations?” Of the 45 smoker who responded, only three (5.9%) indicated weekdays, ten
(19.6%) indicated they smoked more on the weekends and 24 (47.1%) indicated social
situations. Ten (19.6%) smokers checked all three boxes, while four (7.8%) responded
that they smoked more on weekends and social situations. Smokers also indicated onset
age of smoking. Three (5.8%) stated they had started before the age of fourteen, 26 (50%)
started between the ages 15-17 and twenty-three (44.2%) between the ages of 18-21.
Furthermore, smokers indicated how long they have smoked. Answers varied between
less than a year to eleven. Four (7.7%) smoked for less than a year, eleven (21.2%)
smoked between one and three years, eighteen (34.6%) smoked between three and five
years, and nine-teen (36.5%) have smoked for more than five years. Lastly smokers
indicated their frequency of smoking. Only 44 of the 52 smokers identified their
frequency. Twenty (45.5%) smoke less than one pack per week, sixteen (36.4%) smoke
between two and three packs and eight (18.2%) smoke more than four packs per week.
When asked “What purpose does smoking serve for you,” forty-nine smokers
responded. Answers varied between stress relief (36.7%), social (24.5%), addiction
(22.4%), enjoyment (4.1%), combination of answers (i.e., stress relief and addition, 10.2
%) and other (2%). Of the smokers, 35 (67.3%) indicated that they had tried quitting in

the past. The methods tried included; one medicine use (2.9%), 22 had quit cold turkey

2O

(68.56%), 3 used nicotine gum, 3 used a combination approach (i.e., cold turkey and
gum; 8.57%), two identified other (6.5%) and four smokers did not identify a method.
Procedure

All participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental
conditions. To start, all participants completed a lifestyle inventory which addressed
demographic information; age, ethnicity, academic standing and gender. Also included in
the lifestyle inventory were a few questions about their lifestyle behaviors; drinking,
smoking and safety. Individual self identified themselves as smokers or non-smokers.
Those smokers were asked to answer additional questions at the end of survey concerning
their smoking-related behavior.

Following the lifestyle inventory, all participants read an identical job
advertisement (of a fictitious company, Bradley & Associates) which was consistent in
all four conditions. The job advertisement provided participants with a job description
and the benefits offered (see Appendix A). After reading the job advertisement,
participants indicated their attraction toward the organization. Next, participants received
additional information about the organization which included detailed information about
the organization and introduced the organization’s non—smoking policy. The additional
policy information differed along two dimensions; employment severity and organization
assistance regarding a non-smoking policy. After participants read the additional
information, they were asked to answer items assessing their attraction to the
organization, perceptions of support from the organization, beliefs about employer
controllability, and sensitivity about smoking. The final part of the experiment contained

questions pertaining to smokers’ self-efficacy in terms of quitting smoking and quitting

21

smoking in order to obtain a job. Smokers were additionally asked to answer how long
they had been a smoker, the number of cigarette smoked each week and if they had tried
quitting and through which method. Participants were debriefed once the experiment was
completed.

Manipulation Check

Order. To examine the potential effects of the order in which the manipulation
materials and manipulation check items were presented to the participants, two versions
of manipulation materials were prepared. In one version, both severity and organizational
assistance items were presented together. That is, after reading both manipulations (i.e.,
one of the two employment severity messages and one of the two organizational
assistance messages), participants responded to severity manipulation check items and
organizational assistance manipulation check items. In the other version, severity items
and organizational assistance items were separated out. That is, after reading one of the
two employment severity messages, participants responded to questions assessing their
perception of how severe the non-smoking policy would be to one’s employment. Then,
the participants read one of the two organizational assistance messages and responded to
questions assessing their perceptions of organizational assistance.

Employment severity. In this study, employment severity was operationalized in
terms of how the policy would be implemented. High employment severity was defined
as a required policy, mandating new employees’ adherence. In the high employment
severity condition, employment was contingent upon adherence to the non-smoking
policy. Conversely, low employment severity was defined as a recommended policy

wherein new employees’ adherence was voluntary. It was expected that the mandatory

22

policy would be perceived as more severe than a recommended policy. Eleven items
(Cronbach’s a = .92) were used to test the difference between high and low severity
manipulations. Items included “I believe the non-smoking policy is severe” and “I
believe employment is contingent upon adherence to the non-smoking policy.” Initially,
seven items were intended to measure general employment severity and the remaining
four items were intended to measure employment severity specific for smokers. Because
correlation between general employment severity and employment severity specific for
smokers was large, r (296) = .81, p < .001, these two sets of items were combined as one
measure for checking manipulation effectiveness of employment severity. The scale used
a 7-point Likert style response format (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

In order to check if participants in these two conditions perceived differing
degrees of severity, a 2 (severity: high versus low) x 2 (order: together versus separate) x
2 (smoker: yes versus no) ANOVA was run. The analysis showed that there was a
significant main effect for severity, F ( l, 288) = 99.58, p < .001, n2 = .19. Participants
who read the high severity description perceived significantly higher severity (M = 5.22,
SD = 0.96) than did participants who read low severity description (M = 3.48, SD = 1.19).
The results suggest that the severity manipulation was successful. Additionally, there was
no significant main effect for order differences, F (l, 288) = 1.97, p = .16, 112 = .004, and
there were no significant interaction effects between order and severity conditions, F (l ,
288) = 1.38, p = .24, n2 = .004, and between order and smoking status, F (1, 288) = 0.61,
p = .44, n2 = .001. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for smoking status, F
(l, 288) = 16.25, p < .001, n2 = .03, but no significant interaction effects for smoking

status and severity condition, F (1, 288) = 0.80, p = .37, n2 = .002, and for smoking

23

status, severity condition, and order, F (1, 288) = 0.01, p = .94, n2 = .000. Across both
severity conditions, smoking participants perceived significantly higher severity (M =
5.64, SD = 1.04 for the high severity condition; M = 4.19, SD = 0.95 for the low severity
condition), compared to non-smoking participants (M = 5.12, SD = 0.91 for the high
severity condition; M = 3.34, SD = 1.19 for the low severity condition).

Organizational assistance. Two types of organizational assistance were prepared;
in the high assistance condition, the organization provided a comprehensive plan to help
smokers quit at no cost to the employees, whereas in the low assistance condition, it was
up to employees to find support for their attempt to quit smoking. To examine how
supportive participants regarded each of the two organizational assistance types, items
from the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) (Eisenberger et al., 1986;
Eisenberger et al., 2001) were used and adapted in accordance with the purpose of the
current research. Because SPOS measures employees’ perception of organizational
support at the current time, the items were altered to reflect job applicants’ anticipated
support. For example, an item, “The organization really cares about my well-being,” was
modified to “The organization will care about my well being.” Seventeen items
(Cronbach a = .96) were used to test the difference between high and low organizational
assistance manipulations. The scale used a 7-point Likert style response format (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

In order to check if participants in these two conditions perceived differing
degrees of organizational support, a 2 (organizational assistance: high versus low) x 2
(order: together versus separate) x 2 (smoker: yes versus no) AN OVA was run. The

analysis showed that there was a significant main effect for perceived organization

24

support, F (1, 288) = 87.69, p < .001, n2 = .21. The results indicated that the organization
assistance manipulation was successful. Participants who read the high organizational
assistance description perceived greater organizational support (M = 5.35, SD = 0.86)
than did participants who read the low organizational assistance description (M = 4.12,
SD = 1.20). The results revealed no significant main effect for order, F (1, 288) = 2.96, p
= .09, n2 = .007, and no significant interaction effect for order and smoking status, F (l,
288) = 0.21, p = .65, n2 = .001. The order difference, however, had a significant
interaction with organizational assistance condition, F (1, 288) = 7.57, p = .006, n2 = .02.
In order to examine the interaction effect more specifically, simple effects of the order
factor were analyzed. Among those who read the high organizational assistance
description, participants in the together condition (i.e., they read severity description and
organizational assistance description before responding to severity items and perceived
organizational support items) (M = 5.25, SD = 0.83) were not different from those in the
separate condition (M = 5.45, SD = 0.88) (i.e., they read severity description and
responded to severity items before reading organizational assistance description and
responding to perceived organizational support items) , simple effect F (l, 288) = 1.43, p
= ns. Among those who read the low organizational assistance description, however,
participants in the together condition (M = 4.43, SD = 1.19) perceiver higher
organizational support than did those in the separate condition (M = 3.77, SD = 1.12),
simple effect F (1, 288) = 15.42, p < .01. The results showed no significant main effect
for smoking status, F (1, 288) = 1.44, p = .23, n2 = .003. The smoking status, however,
had a significant interaction with organizational assistance condition, F (1, 288) = 5.11, p

= .03, n2 = .01. In order to examine the interaction effect more specifically, simple effects

25

of the order factor were analyzed. Among those who read the high organizational
assistance description, smokers (M = 5.50, SD = 0.77) and non-smokers (M = 5.31, SD =
0.87) did not differ in their perception of organizational support, simple effect F (1, 288)
= 0.66, p = ns. Among those who read the low organizational assistance description,
however, smokers (M = 3.63, SD = 1.23) perceived significantly lower organizational
support than did non-smokers (M = 4.23, SD = 1.16), simple effect F (1, 288) = 8.22, p <
.01. The three-way interaction involving organizational assistance, order, and smoking
status was not significant, F (1, 288) = 0.07, p = .79, n2 = .000.

Measures

Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, and correlations of variables. All the
measures were measured with a 7-point Likert style response format (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Organizational attractiveness. The measure for this dependent variable was
adapted from Highhouse et al.’s (2003) organizational attraction measure. Of the three
dimensions (general attraction, job pursuit intentions, and organizational prestige) of
organizational attractiveness scale (Highhouse et al., 2003), five items assessing general
attraction (e. g., “For me, Bradley & Associates would be a great place to work.”) and five
items assessing job pursuit intentions e.g.,' “I would accept a job offer from Bradley &
Associates”) were used for the current study.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to see the number of
dimensions of organizational attraction. The unidimensional (i.e., one-factor) model
showed a good fit WEI = .97, CFI = .97, [PI = .97, GFI = .87, AGFI = .80) for the pre-

attraction scores (i.e., attraction measured after the participants read the job

26

advertisement) and (NFI = .98, CFI = .98, [F1 = .98, GFI = .93, AGFI = .89) for the post-
attraction scores (i.e., attraction measured after the participants read about the non-
smoking policy). Although a two-dimension model also showed a good fit (NFI = .98,
CFI = .99, [PI = .99, GFI = .92, AGFI = .87) for the pre—attraction scores and (NFI = .98,
CFI = .99, IFI = .99, CE] = .94, AGFI = .90) for the post-attraction scores, the general
attraction factor and job pursuit intention factor were highly correlated with each other (r
= .94 for the pre-attraction scores and r = .97 for the post-attraction scores). Thus, one
dimension model was retained and used for the further analysis. The ten items had
reliabilities of .96 for the pre-attraction scores and .95 for the post-attraction scores. In
general, the participants indicated higher attraction (M = 4.93, SD = 1.37) toward the
organization before reading about the non-smoking policy than after reading about it (M
= 4.65, SD = 1.44), t (295) = 5.30, p < .001.

Employer controllability. Employer controllability items were created to measure
the extent individuals believe an employer has control or power over employees’
behaviors in general. Initially, eight items were used to measure employer controllability
(EC) and reliability ((1) was .58. After removing all but two items (“An employer has the
right to tell employees what to do.” and “An employer has the power to tell employees
what to do”), the reliability increased to .72. Additionally, all eight employer
controllability items were altered to specifically measure employer controllability of
smoking behaviors (ECS) specifically (e. g., “An employer has the right to tell employees
not to smoke,” “An employer has control over employees’ smoking behavior.”). These

items measured individuals’ beliefs concerning the amount of control or power they

27

believed an employer has over employees’ smoking behavior. The eight items used to
measure smoking-related employer controllability yield Cronbach’s a = .75.

Smoking sensitivity. Smoking sensitivity questions were included to measure
participants’ perceptions about smokers and preferences toward being around smokers.
Six items were used to measure smoking sensitivity (Cronbach’s a = .91). Items included
“I don’t like being around smokers” and “People should not smoke when others are near
by.”

Smoking cessation self-eflicacy. Self-efficacy is defined “as the belief in one’s
ability to successfully execute the behavior required to produce certain outcomes”
(Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Research has demonstrated that individuals with high self-
efficacy have a greater likelihood of adopting health recommendations and seeking out
preventive care (J anz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1974). Two sets of self-efficacy
question were incorporated into the study; general smoking cessation self-efficacy
(SCSE) and smoking cessation self-efficacy for employment (SCSEE). General self-
efficacy was used to measure smoker’s belief about the ease and ability to quit smoking.
Five items were used to determine general self-efficacy (Cronbach’s a = .90). Items
included “Quitting smoking is not difficult for me” and “Quitting smoking is not a
problem for me.”

The second set of self-efficacy questions were included to measure smoker’s self-
efficacy pertaining to obtaining employment. Five items were used to determine smoking
self-efficacy for employment (Cronbach’s a = .94). Items included “I am able to quit
smoking if necessary for employment” and “I am capable of quitting smoking if required

for employment.”

28

Open-Ended Questions

In order to capture participants’ opinions about the non-smoking policy and their
intentions to apply to this organization and accept a job offer if this organization were to
offer one, four related questions were asked: 1) how or why did the non-smoking policy
affect your intentions to apply?, 2) how did thenon-smoking policy affect your likelihood
of accepting a job offer?, 3) in general, what do you think about a non-smoking policy in
the workplace?, and 4) are there other behaviors that you would quit in order to get a job?
Please explain. For the first three questions, participants’ answers were coded similarly
(i.e., the same coding schemes were applied) and the last question was coded separately.
Initially, all respondents were coded to find general patterns. Then, non-smokers’

answers were separately tabulated.

29

Results
Overview

A 2 (severity: high versus low) x 2 (organizational assistance: high versus low) x
2 (smoking status: yes versus no) x 2 (order: together versus separate) between-subject
ANOVA with difference scores for attraction (pre-attraction minus post-attraction) was
used to test the three hypothesizes. A main effect for smoking status (i.e., susceptibility)
provided a test for hypothesis one. Hypothesis two was tested with a main effect for
severity. Finally, an interaction effect between severity and perceived organizational
assistance was relevant for hypothesis three.

Some variation existed in participants’ pre-attraction scores, mostly due to
sampling error. To account for this variation, difference scores between pre-attraction and
post—attraction was used as the dependent variable (i.e., decrease in organizational
attraction). The difference scores in organization attraction had a reliability of .86. It
should be noted that the between-subject ANOVA with the difference scores as the
dependent variable yielded the same results as when a mixed AN OVA was run with pre-
attraction and post-attraction scores as repeated measures. Thus, for simplicity in
explaining significant findings, the results of the between-subject ANOVA with the
difference scores as the dependent variable will be discussed. When it is necessary to
clarify any significant findings, however, the cell means and standard deviations of pre-
attraction and post-attraction scores will be provided as well.

Main Analysis
The first hypothesis predicted that non-smokers would be more attracted to an

organization with a non-smoking policy than smokers. It was predicted that a subject’s

30

susceptibility, as defined by the non-smoking policy, would affect organizational
attractiveness. The results of an ANOVA using difference scores indicated that there was
a significant main effect for susceptibility (i.e., smoking status), F (1, 280) = 11.71, p <
.01, n2 = .35. Consistent with the hypothesis, an examination of the means indicated that
there was less of a decline in organizational attractiveness (pre to post) in nonsmokers
(Mdm, = 0.19, SD = 0.80), compared to smokers (Mdm, = 0.70, SD = 1.20). In other words,
the mean of non-smokers’ pre-attraction score was 4.91 (SD = 1.37), which dropped to
4.73 (SD = 1.38) after reading about the non-smoking policy. On the other hand, the
mean of smokes’ pre-attraction scores was 4.99 (SD = 1.41), which decreased to 4.29 (SD
= 1.69) after reading about the non-smoking policy. It is concluded that susceptibility to
the non-smoking policy affected the job applicant’ attraction to the organization.

The second hypothesis predicted that job applicants would be more attracted to an
organization low in severity of a non-smoking policy compared to an organization high in
severity of a non-smoking policy. The results of an ANOVA using difference scores did
not reveal a significant main effect for severity, F (1, 280) = 0.824, p =.37, n2 = .002.
Participants who read the high employment severity description (Mdm, = 0.29, SD = 0.96)
and participants who read the low employment severity description (Mdm = 0.27, SD =
0.84) did not differ in their attraction level to the organization. In other words,
participants who read the high severity description had a pre-attraction mean of 4.86 (SD
= 1.34), dropping to a post-attraction score mean of 4.57 (SD = 1.41 ). Those who read the
low severity description had a pre-attraction score mean of 4.99 (SD = 1.41) and a post-
attraction score mean of 4.73 (SD = 1.47). Inconsistent with the second hypothesis, it is

concluded that organizational attraction was not dependent upon severity.

31

Finally, the third hypothesis predicted that organizational assistance would
moderate the relationship between the effects of severity of a non-smoking policy and job
applicants’ attraction to an organization. The analysis did not reveal a significant
interaction effect between the two variables, F (1, 280) = 0.15, p = .70, n2 = .00. Contrary
to the prediction, the effects of severity of a non-smoking policy on job applicant’s
attraction to an organization did not vary with organizational assistance.

Additional Analysis

Organizational assistance. Although organizational assistance was not
hypothesized as a main effect, additional analysis revealed a significant main effect for
organizational assistance, F (1, 280) = 12.11, p <.01, n2 = .036. Participants who read the
high organizational assistance description had a smaller decline in attraction (Mdm =
0.08, SD = 0.59) compared to participants who read the low organizational assistance
description (Mdm, = 0.49, SD = 1.11). In other words, the pre-attraction scores (M = 5.08,
SD = 1.31) of participants who read the high organizational assistance description were
similar to their pre-attraction scores (M = 5.00, SD = 1.35). Those who read the low
organizational assistance description had bigger differences between their pre-attraction
scores (M = 4.76, SD = 1.42) and post-attraction scores (M = 4.27, SD = 1.45).
Examination of these means indicated that organizational attractiveness was significantly
higher in high organizational assistance condition compared to low organizational
assistance condition.

Organizational assistance and order. Through additional analysis with the data, a
significant interaction effect between organizational assistance and order was observed, F

(1, 280) = 9.71, p = .002, n2 = .029. In order to examine the interaction effect more

32

specifically, simple effects of the order factor were analyzed. Among those who read
high organizational assistance description, the participants in the together condition (Mdm
= 0.15, SD = 0.56) and those in the separate condition (Mdm, = 0.003, SD = 0.62) did not
differ in decrease in attraction scores, simple effect F (1, 280) = 1.19, p = ns. Among
those who read low organizational assistance description, however, the participants in the
together condition (Mm, = 0.25, SD = 0.92) and those in the separate condition (Mdm =
0.75, SD = 1.23) had significantly different decrease in attraction scores, simple effect F
(1, 280) = 10.97, p < .01. In other word, post organizational attraction was highest in high
organizational assistance and separate condition (M = 5.14, SD = 1.26), following in
ascending order, high organizational assistance and together condition (M = 4.87, SD =
1.42), low organizational assistance and together condition (M = 4.38, SD = 1.37) and
lastly low organizational assistance and separate condition (M = 4.15, SD = 1.54).
Regression analysis. To further examine the relationships among severity,
organizational assistance, and three other variables (employer controllability, employer
controllability of smoking behaviors, and smoking sensitivity) for predicting decrease in
attraction, the severity and perceived organizational support measures used for
manipulation check was used for regression analysis. Before conducting the analysis, the
predictor variables were mean-centered to avoid nonessential multicollinearity and to
achieve easier interpretation (of, Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). For interaction
effects (i.e., second-order and third-order effects), the criterion variable was regressed
onto the product terms of the predictor variables. The overall regression results are
reported in Table 2 and follow-up results probing the significant first- and higher-order

effects are presented in the text and illustrated in Figures 1 to 5. The moderated

33

regression analysis was done with data only from non-smokers for a few reasons. First,
although smoker status could be used as a dummy-coded predictor in the regression
analysis, the portion of smokers in the sample were too small for testing three or higher
order interactions between smoker status and other predictors and obtaining reliable
estimates for coefficients. Second, the correlation between smoker sensitivity and smoker
status was .62, which could pose some concern for multicollinearity if the two variables
were used in the same analysis. Third, because two predictor variables, smoking
cessation self efficacy for employment and smoking cessation self efficacy for
employment, were relevant only to smokers, inclusion of these two variables in the
regression reduces degrees of freedom dramatically.

A regression analysis was conducted separately for smokers. Because of the small
number of smokers in the sample, the data from smokers were not appropriate for testing
interactions among the independent variables. Thus, only the first-order effects of the
independent variables were examined for smokers’ attraction decrease. The regression
analysis showed that the model with the seven predictors was significant, F (7, 44) =
8.22, p < .001, adj.R2 = .50. Among the seven predictors, only perceived organizational
support was significant, B = —.39, t = —2.93, p = .005. Severity (B = .18, t= 1.52, p = .14),
employer controllability (B '= —-.09, t = —0.82, p = .42), employer controllability of
smoking behaviors (B = —.21, t = —l .82, p = .08), smoking sensitivity (B = -.09, t = —0.79,
p = .43), smoking cessation self efficacy (B = .23, t = 1.64, p = .11), and smoking
cessation self efficacy for employment (B = —.18, t = —1.13, p = .27) were not significant.

The regression analyses with data from non-smokers revealed that the overall

model was significant, F (25, 216) = 5.79, p < .001, adj.R2 = .33. The five first-order

34

predictors in the first block of regression analysis contributed significantly in explaining
variance in the decrease in attraction, F (5, 236) = 14.35, p < .001, adj.R2 = .22. As
shown in Table 2, among the predictors, perceived organizational support, employer
controllability, and employer controllability of smoking behaviors were significantly
related to decrease in attraction, while severity’and smoking sensitivity were not. That is,
the higher the organizational support the participants perceived and the greater power the
participants considered employers to have on employees’ general behaviors and smoking
behavior, the less differences were observed in the participants’ attraction toward
organization before and after they found about the non-smoking policy of the
organization.

The second-order predictors (i.e., the two-way interaction terms in the second
block) also significantly contributed to explaining variance in decrease in attraction,
Fem",gc (10, 226) = 3.30, p = .001, chhangc = .10. Among the predictors, the interaction
terms for severity and employer controllability of smoking behaviors, for severity and
smoking sensitivity, and for perceived organizational support and employer
controllability of smoking behaviors were significant. For these significant interactions,
unstandardized simple slopes were assessed to examine the interaction pattern more
clearly, following the procedure advanced by Aiken and West (1991). As displayed in
Figure 1, for the moderating role of employer controllability of smoking behaviors for the
relationship between severity and decrease in attraction, the unstandardized simple slope
(B = —0.08, t = —1.75, p = .08) at employer controllability of smoking behaviors 1 SD
below score was negative, whereas the simple slope (B = 0.05, t = 1.07, p = .29) at social

cost 1 SD above score was positive. As displayed in Figure 2, for the moderating role of

35

smoking sensitivity for the relationship between severity and decrease in attraction, the
unstandardized simple slope (B = 0.11, t = 2.25, p = .03) at smoking sensitivity 1 SD
below score was positive, whereas the simple slope (B = —0. 14, t = —3.24, p = .001) at
smoking sensitivity 1 SD above score was negative. As displayed in Figure 3, for the
moderating role of employer controllability of smoking behaviors for the relationship
between perceived organizational support and decrease in attraction, the unstandardized
simple slope (B = —0.34, t = —5.84, p < .001) at employer controllability of smoking
behaviors 1 SD below score was more strongly negative than the simple slope (B = —0.1 1,
t = —1.73, p = .09) at employer controllability of smoking behaviors 1 SD above score.

The third-order predictors (i.e., the three-way interaction terms in the third block)
also significantly contributed to explaining variance in decrease in attraction, Fchangc (10,
213) = 2.54, p = .006, chhangc = .10. Among the predictors, the interaction terms for
severity, perceived organizational support, and smoking sensitivity and for perceived
organizational support, employer controllability of smoking behaviors, and smoking
sensitivity were significant. As shown in Figure 4, for the relationship between severity
and decrease in attraction, the unstandardized simple slope (B = 0.10, t = 1.33, p = .18) at
perceived organizational support 1 SD below score and smoking sensitivity 1 SD below
was positive, whereas the simple slope (B = —0.24, t = —3.75, p < .001) at perceived
organizational support 1 SD below score and smoking sensitivity 1 SD above score was
negative. The unstandardized simple slope (B = 0.02, t = 0.20, p = .84) at perceived
organizational support 1 SD above score and smoking sensitivity 1 SD below was
positive, whereas the simple slope (B = —0.05, t = —0.91 , p = .37) at perceived

organizational support 1 SD above score and smoking sensitivity 1 SD above score was

36

negative. As shown in Figure 5, for the relationship between perceived organizational
support and decrease in attraction, the unstandardized simple slope (B = —0.l9, t = 2.18, p
= .03) at employer controllability of smoking behaviors 1 SD below score and smoking
sensitivity 1 SD below was positive, whereas the simple slope (B = —0.50, t = —6.02, p <
.001) at employer controllability of smoking behaviors 1 SD below score and smoking
sensitivity 1 SD above score was negative. The unstandardized simple slope (B = —0.l3, t
= —1.27, p = .21) at employer controllability of smoking behaviors 1 SD above score and
smoking sensitivity 1 SD below was positive, whereas the simple slope (B = 0.02, t =
0.25, p = .80) at employer controllability of smoking behaviors 1 SD above score and
smoking sensitivity 1 SD above score was negative.

Open-ended questions. Tables 3 through 14 display categorization of participants’
answers to the four open-ended questions. For the first three open-ended questions (Q1.
How did the non—smoking policy affect intention to apply?, Q2. How did the non-
smoking policy affect likelihood of accepting a job offer?, Q3. What do you think about a
non-smoking policy in the workplace?), three main categories: positive opinions (36%),
negative Opinions (33%) and non-directional opinions (28.78%) emerged, of which each
was broken down into subcategories shown in Tables 6 through 8. The remaining
responses were either irrelevant or indecipherable. Of the first three questions, some
commonly identified positive items (n = 314) included non-smoking environment
(30.25%) and assistance and health (13.06%). However, the majority of positive
responses (45.22%) did not specify a reason, just indicated favorability toward the policy.
Of the first three questions some commonly identified negative items (n = 289) included

personal choice (28.72%), the implementation of the policy (17.30%), and limiting the

37

policy to the workplace (14.53%). Of the negative responses, 19.03% did not specify a
reason but stated they had negative beliefs. Of the non-directional responses (n = 251),
75.46% of respondents stated that the policy had no affect on their intentions to apply or
accept a job offer.

For the fourth question (Q4. Are there other behaviors that you would quit in
order to get a job?), the answers were classified to four main categories; no (60.91%), yes
(35%), don’t know/depends (13.18%) and other (4.55%) emerged. The remaining
responses were either irrelevant or indecipherable. Of the participants who indicated there
were no behaviors they would give up (n = 134), the majority (60.91%) just replied with
a no. However accompanying some responses, 22.02% indicated that they did not have
any bad/negative/major/unhealthy behaviors and 17.43% indicated that it was a matter of
personal choice. From participants who indicated there were behaviors they would give
up (n = 77); 34.85% stated alcohol, 18.18% stated they would stop a behavior if it was
work related, and 16.67% stated they would stop or start behaviors geared toward
increase physical appearance (i.e., working out, eating healthy). Items coded as other
included suggestions or behaviors related to being on time (i.e., tardiness).

In order to decipher differences in susceptibility, responses were separated. With
respect to the first three questions, when smokers are excluded, negative responses
decrease from 33.14% to 28.78%, while positive responses increase from 36.01% to
39.23%. The pattern of responses from non-smokers is similar to the pattern of all
participants. When smokers are excluded, the same negative responses are prevalent there
are just fewer of them; dislike for the policy, personal choice and limited to the

workplace. As for question 4, when smokers are excluded the amount of participants

38

unwilling to modify or change their behaviors drops from 60.91% to 49.55%. Similarly,
the amount of participants willing to change their behaviors for employment also
decreases when smokers are included from 35% to 30%. In general regardless of
susceptibility, respondents’ appraisal of the policy and intentions to apply and accept an
offer are similar. Although smokers tend to have a more negative appraisal, the reasons

are consistent with non-smokers expressed rational for disliking the policy.

39

Discussion

In spite of the diverse negative consequences associated with tobacco, the
prevalence of smoking in the United States is 22.5% (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2004). Given the widespread nature of smoking related consequences,
attempts to lessen the incidence of smoking is beneficial not only to the individual
smoker and their family, but to their employer and society. This study addressed smoking
through an organizational lens by looking at the impact a non-smoking policy has on job
applicants’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness. The workplace provides a
context where stricter and diverse penalties and consequences unassociated with health
can be applied to smokers.

The overall pattern of the results revealed was that regardless of the severity level
of a non-smoking policy the mere presence of a non-smoking policy generated a decrease
in organization attraction for the majority of participants. However, 28% of respondents
actually increased their attraction level (i.e., pre-attraction scores < post-attraction scores)
after being informed of a non-smoking policy. An examination of answers to the open-
ended questions suggested possible explanations for the increase in attraction; for
example, general favorability of a non-smoking work environment. More pronounced
differences in organizational attraction can be attributable to interaction effects, which
will be discussed hereafter.

Consistent with H1, the results showed that participants who identified
themselves as smokers had a greater decline in attraction (i.e., a lower post attraction)
compared to non-smokers. Susceptibility to a non-smoking policy influenced job

applicants’ perceptions of the organization in such a way that smokers viewed the

40

organization as less attractive after being informed of the policy. Consistent with health
research, an individual’s perception of susceptibility contributes to their appraisal of
health messages (Rosenstock, 1974; Witte, 1992). According to health theories such as
the Health Belief Model and Extended Parallel Process Model, a high degree of
susceptibility is necessary for message processing, further motivating individuals to
action (Rosenstock, 1974; Witte, 1992). Although in this study, susceptibility was not
subjective but defined by the policy, it still impacted the appraisal of the policy and
subsequently attraction to the organization.

Inconsistent with H2, high and low severity of a non-smoking policy did not
differentiate organizational attractiveness. The current finding is contrary to Truxillo et
al.’s (2002) finding that for an alcohol policy, the recommended policy (i.e., voluntary
participation) increased organization attraction. Many public places including;
restaurants, bars, hospitals, schools and daycare facilities ban smoking (CDC Releases
Data on Smoking Prevalence, Attitudes, 2002). Additionally in many workplaces
smoking is not allowed. The pervasiveness of non-smoking areas reflects society’s
attitudes toward smoking. Smoking was once considered a desirable trait, whereas now
smoking has become socially undesirable. In their answers to the open-ended questions,
many participants expressed their favorability of a non-smoking work environment and
not having people smelling of smoke; “I am not a smoker and therefore I don’t like being
around the smell or people that do,” “I would be more inclined to apply because I would
much rather work in a non-smoking environment and have work friends who are healthy

’9 6619

non-smokers, m a non-smoker by choice and of health limitations,” and “When I am

41

around smokers my asthma condition is affected. 1 would apply here because I believe in
the campaign of banning harmful body toxins such as smoking.”

Consistent with Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) position that perceptions of
organizational support lead to positive outcomes, the current study found that the
participants in the high level of organizationalassistance condition showed smaller
decreases in attraction after reading about a non-smoking policy, having higher attraction
to the organizational than those in the low level organizational assistance condition.
Providing high organizational support might have generated an organizational image as a
caring and support environment, potentially mitigating the effects of the non-smoking
policy. Some of the participants’ answers to the open-ended questions illustrated this
point; “It made me more likely that I would accept a job, because it promotes a healthier
atmosphere,” “It [intention to apply] increases because they show they care about their
employees’ health and well-being,” and “I like that Bradley & Associates would help an
employee at any cost.” Therefore, in order to counter the negative effects a non-smoking
policy can have on job applicants’ attraction to an organization, it may be imperative that
organizations are perceived as supportive.

Interestingly, the slight difference in the way the participants responded to the
manipulation materials and manipulation check items affected the effects of
organizational support on organizational attractiveness. For the high organizational
assistance condition, no differences in the decline in attraction were observed whether
severity manipulation materials and organizational assistance manipulation materials
were separate from each other or not, For the low organizational assistance condition,

however, the greatest decline in attraction was observed when severity manipulation

42

materials and organizational assistance materials were separate from each other. It is
speculated that when participants read low organizational assistance descriptions
separately from the severity description, they were able to focus on the low
organizational assistance description, which influenced their attraction negatively.

In this study, it was predicted that the effect of severity on organizational
attractiveness would be moderated by organizational assistance. But this did not occur.
Instead, organizational assistance had a significant direct effect on attraction by itself. It
is possible that other variables could actually moderate the effect of perceived
employment severity on organizational attractiveness; for example, individuals’ view
about smokers and sensitivity toward smoking, and beliefs about the extent of employers’
controllability over employees’ behavior. The current study focused on an organizational
variable (i.e., varied organizational assistance), but it is possible that individual
differences in smoking sensitivity or beliefs about employer controllability could
moderate the effects of severity on attraction levels. The additional regression analyses
provided some support for this speculation.

As depicted in Figure 1 a two-way interaction between severity and employer
controllability of smoking behaviors existed for non-smokers. For non—smoking
participants who more strongly believed that an employer has control over their
employees’ smoking behavior, increase in perceived severity was positively related to
decrease in attraction. On the other hand, participants who less strongly believed that an
employer has control over their employees’ smoking behavior, increase in perceived
severity was negatively associated with decrease in attraction; that is, as perceived

severity increases, less difference between pre-attraction and post—attraction scores. This

43

finding seems counterintuitive, making it difficult to explain at this point. A possible
explanation may be gained by applying French and Ravin’s (1959) power types.

According to French and Raven (1959), power can be classified into five
categories. It is possible that differences exist in terms of participants’ perceptions on the
types of power that employers can exercise over employees. Even among the participants
who had stronger beliefs that an employer has control over their employees’ smoking
behavior, those who were more likely to consider the policy severe might have
interpreted the required policy as coercive. Even for those with stronger beliefs on
employer controllability, the way in which the employer exerts their control over
employees may be seen negatively, as a form of punishment. Research on power types
has demonstrated that coercive power (the leader’s ability to sanction or punish for
failing to comply) is negatively associated with organizational outcomes such as
compliance gaining (Rahim & Buntzman, 1988) and commitment (Yukl & Falbe, 1991 ).
On the other hand, for participants who were less likely to endorse employer
controllability over smoking, the non-smoking policy may have been seen as legitimizing
the employer’s power (based on one’s title or position occupied, grounded in formal
authority) demonstrating the fact that smoking behavior actually is controllable by the
employer.

Illustrated in Figure 2, a two-way interaction between smoking sensitivity and
perceived severity existed for non-smokers. For non-smoking participants who had a
greater dislike for smoking (i.e., high smoking sensitivity), as perceptions of severity
increased, attraction increased. The opposite pattern was observed for participants who

did not mind smoking prevalence (i.e., low smoking sensitivity); as perceptions of

severity increased, a decrease in attraction occurred. A possible explanation for the effect
of smoking sensitivity is that for those with a greater dislike for smoking, the presence of
a severe policy is consistent with their beliefs. A high severity policy prohibits smoking;
therefore employees will have a non-smoking work environment and have coworkers
who are all non-smokers. Therefore the policy will minimize their exposure to smoke.
The high severity policy takes a proactive approach against smokers which mirrors the
view of participants with high smoking sensitivity. Conversely, for participants who were
less concerned about the presence of smokers, a high severity policy requiring employees
to quit smoking could be perceived as a violation of a person’s right, which is
inconsistent with their view of how smokers should be treated. It is possible that these
participants viewed the organization’s restriction as unfair and lowered their attraction to
the organization due to the coercive power demonstrated by the employer.

A two—way interaction between employer controllability of smoking behaviors
and perceived organizational support is illustrated in Figure 3 for non-smokers. When
perceptions of support were low, the effects of employer controllability of smoking
behaviors were more pronounced. For non-smoking participants who less strongly
believed that an employer has control over employees’ smoking behavior, the higher their
perception of organizational support, the less decrease in their organizational attraction.
As for non-smoking participants who more strongly believed that an employer has
control over their employees’ smoking behavior, the perception of organizational support
only had a minimal affect on attraction. In this case, if any, there was a smaller increase
in attraction. Participants who less strongly believed that an employer has control,

perceptions of organizational support lead to less of a decrease compared to low

45

perceptions of organizational support. It seems that the prevalence of support
demonstrated the supportive nature of the employer for participants with low employer
controllability of smoking behaviors. Although these participants may not agree that an
employer can control smoking behavior, the lack of perceived control by the employer is
overshadowed by the support offered by the organization. The high level of support
offered by the organization offers a way for these individuals to rationalize the control.
As depicted in Figure 3, high perceived organizational support yielded a slight increase in
attraction levels. From a recruitment standpoint, an applicant’s view of employer
controllability regarding smoking is moderated by perceived organizational support. They
might not agree with an employer’s controllability, but a greater amount of organizational
support may be more likely to assuage their uneasiness about an employer’s control.
Figure 4 illustrates a three—way interaction among severity, perceived
organizational support, and smoking sensitivity for predicting a decrease in
organizational attraction for non-smokers. For non-smoking participants who perceived
low or little organizational support and disliked the presence of smoke, as perceptions of
severity increased, less change in attraction occurred. Possibly, these participants viewed
the high severity policy as infringing on a person’s freedom of choice. Therefore, it
seems that their disagreement with policy lead to decreased levels in attractions possibly
due to reactance. Conversely, for individuals who perceived low/little/minimal support
and did not mind the presence of smoke, as severity increased, a greater difference in
organizational attraction was observed (i.e., attraction decreased). As for participants who
perceived high support and did not mind the presence of smoking, the effects of severity

were minimal. Lastly, for participants who perceived organizational support was high and

46

disliked the presence of smoke, as perceptions of severity increased, there was an
increase in attraction. In short, the extent to which the relationship between perceived
severity and decrease in organizational varied with smoking sensitivity seemed more
pronounced for those with higher perception of organizational support than for those with
lower perception of organizational support.

Lastly, Figure 5 shows a three-way interaction among perceived organizational
support, employer controllability of smoking behaviors and smoking sensitivity for
predicting a decrease in organizational attraction for non-smokers. For non-smoking
participants who less strongly believed that an employer has control over employees’
smoking behavior and disliked smoking, as perceived organizational support increased, a
greater change in attraction scores was observed (i.e., attraction increases). Similar
relationships (i.e., a negative relationship between perceived organizational support and
decrease in organizational attraction) existed for participants who do not mind smoking
prevalence, regardless of their beliefs concerning employer’s controllability. Lastly, for
participants who strongly believed an employer has control over employee’s smoking
behavior and did not like the prevalence of smoke, as perception of support increased,
there was a minimal decrease in attraction.

Practical Implications

A few implications can be drawn from the current findings for organizational
recruitment. First, the current findings imply that the degree of severity alone does not
impact attraction. As the current findings showed, the mere presence of the non-smoking
policy could lower potential job applicants’ attraction toward the organization, regardless

of the severity level. If organizations want to implement a strict non-smoking policy, but

47

worry about losing qualified applicants, they may need to pay attention to other factors
that affect more seriously potential job applicants’ view about them. If so, organizations
may even attract more applicants who prefer a smoke-free environment and also those
who are motivated to quit smoking.

Second, organizations need to be aware of the fact that a non-smoking policy in
the workplace also has implications for non-smokers. Although the policy affects
smokers directly and more seriously, non-smokers can also show reactions in the
direction undesirable to the organization. Even among non-smokers, there are individual
variations in the extent to which they endorse employer controllability in general and of
smoking behavior. Non—smokers who strongly believe employers should not control
employees’ behaviors including smoking probably will not find an organization with a
non-smoking policy attractive.

Lastly, a non-smoking policy does not seem to have a uniform negative impact on
potential job applicants, however. In the current study, 28% of the participants increased
their attraction scores (i.e., pre—attraction<post-attraction scores) after being informed of a
non—smoking policy. Although none of the variables employed in the current study could
explain the differences between this segment of participants and the rest of the
participants who lowed their attractions scores (pre-attraction scores>post~attraction
scores), an individual Characteristic such as smoking sensitivity may provide a clue. It is
possible that for those who prefer a smoke-free environment may find an organization
with a non-smoking policy as attractive. Thus, before recruitment and selection
processes, organizations may need to do careful examination of which segment of the

population from which they want to recruit their future employees.

48

Limitations

First, having more smokers in the sample would have allowed for more detailed
comparison of smokers and non-smokers. Because the participants self-identified their
smoking status, inaccuracies in self-reporting might have existed. It is possible that
participants, who occasionally smoke, may not have self—identified themselves to be a
smoker.. Whether these participants smoke one cigarette a month or only smoke in social
situations, it might have been necessary to identify these. Additionally, people who used
to smoke may have identified themselves as non-smokers. It is possible that even as non-
smokers; differences might have influenced their attraction to the organization. In future
studies have extra questions about one’s smoking history (i.e. Have you ever smoked?
Have you smoked in the last month?) will help to eliminate this.

Second, the current study used college students. Although more than half of the
participants were seniors, the participants might have not be seriously job searching.
Information gained from undergraduate students’ perceptions may not be sufficient for
understanding actual job applicants’ perceptions (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). Individuals’
attitudes about various organizations and intention to apply may change overtime in their
job search processes. Even the relationship between attitudes about an organization and
intention to apply seems to change over time in such a way that attitudes become less
relevant to intention to apply as job seekers near the end of job search processes (Carless,
2005).

Lastly, this study only addressed potential job applicants. Different results may
occur in existing employees and subsequently the outcome of concern may shift from

attraction to commitment or satisfaction.

49

Future Research

The results of this study indicate that individual differences moderate the effects
of severity on organizational attraction. Therefore, in addition to searching for other
important organizational variables for the relationship between employment severity of a
non-smoking policy and organizational attraction, future research should examine
individual differences and attitudes about smoking as potential moderators as well.
Examination of these variables may shed light on why, for some individuals, the
prevalence of a non-smoking policy actually increases their attraction to the organization.
Second, future research may focus on other job attributes that signal organizational
assistance as additional ways to increase perceptions of organizational support given that
perceived organizational support had a significant effect on attraction. Lastly, from the
open-ended questions, a noticeable theme that emerged from the negative responses was
threat of future policies (5.54%). Therefore, future research should investigate how job
applicants as well as existing employees would respond if an organization announces that
it will consider implementing more policies concerning health—related behaviors (e. g.,
exercise, diet) in addition to non-smoking policy.
Conclusion

This study addressed how job applicants’ attraction to an organization would be
affected by a non-smoking policy of the workplace that promoted smoking cessation.
This study demonstrated, the existence of the policy was enough to reduce attraction.
Although the general pattern illustrated a decline in attraction, 28% of participants
actually had increases in their attraction after being informed of a non-smoking policy.

Further research in this area is needed to investigate both individual differences as well as

50

other organization variables that may moderate the relationship between a non-smoking
policy and attraction. As the increasing trend in health promotion programs in the
workplace and smoking restrictions continue, it is crucial to understand how both job
applicants and existing employees appraise messages concerning these topics. Especially
concerning smoking, individuals’ attitude toward smoking seems to contribute to
attraction to an organization with a non-smoking policy. Organizations need to be aware
of the effects of a non-smoking policy so that they are able to attract qualified and

desirable candidates.

51

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l
Non-smokers (n = 244)
DA Severity POS EC ECS SS
Severity .02
POS -.43*** -.l6*
EC -.29*** .01 .24***
ECS —.24*** .01 .14* .21 **
SS -.14* -.00 .16* .21** .15*
M 0.19 4.22 4.81 4.70 3.36 5.23
SD 0.80 1.38 1.15 1.21 1.00 1.36
Smokers (n = 52)
DA Severity POS EC ECS SS SCSE SCSEE
Severity .46**
POS -.63*** -.40**
EC —.25 .07 .31 *
ECS -.50*** -.23 .38** .14
SS -.37*** -.37** .15 .10 .37**
SCSE .08 .1 1 .14 .17 -.02 -.07
SCSEE -.34* -.12 .45** .31 * .28* .25 .64***
M 0.70 4.97 4.46 4.46 2.72 2.51 4.76 5.67
SD 1.20 1.23 1.41 1.27 1.11 1.09 1.65 1.45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001

DA: Difference between pre-and post-attraction scores (i.e., decrease in organizational
attraction)

Severity: Perceived Employment Severity

POS: Perceived Organizational Support

EC: Employer Controllability

ECS: Employer Controllability of Smoking Behaviors

SS: Smoking Sensitivity

SCSE: Smoking Cessation Self-Efficacy

SCSEE: Smoking Cessation Self-Efficacy for Employment

52

Table 2. Moderated Multiple Regression for Decrease in Attraction.

 

 

 

 

B SE B t Sr

First Block

First Order Effect
Severity —0.03 0.03 —.()5 -().77 —.04
POS —0.25 0.04 —.35 —5.90*** -.34
EC —0.1 l 0.04 —.16 —2.71** —.16
ECS —0.12 0.05 —.15 -2.51* —.14
SS —0.02 0.03 —.()3 —0.51 -.03

Second Block

Second Order Effect
Severity x POS 0.04 0.03 .08 1.42 .08
Severity x EC —0.03 0.03 —.07 -1.13 —.06
Severity x ECS 0.06 0.03 .13 205* .1 1
Severity x SS —0.09 0.02 —.23 —3.90*** —.21
POS x EC 0.05 0.03 .10 1.55 .08
POS x ECS 0.11 0.04 .17 253* .14
POS x SS —0.04 0.03 —.09 —1.37 —.07
EC x ECS 0.03 0.03 .05 0.85 .05
EC x SS -0.02 0.03 —.05 -0.77 -.04
ECS x SS 0.01 0.03 .01 0.17 .01

Third Block

Third Order Effect
Severity x POS x EC 0.03 0.02 .08 1.21 .06
Severity x POS x ECS —0.02 0.03 -—.06 —0.85 —.04
Severity x POS x SS 0.04 0.02 .14 2.04* .1 1
Severity x EC x ECS 0.04 0.02 .1 1 1.63 .09
Severity x EC x SS —0.02 0.02 ——.07 —1.01 —.05
Severity x ECS x SS 0.03 0.02 .09 1.17 .06
POS x EC x ECS -0.05 0.03 —.1 1 —1.49 ~-.08
POS x EC x SS 0.00 0.02 .00 —0.07 .00
POS x ECS x SS 0.09 0.04 .20 238* .13
EC x ECS x SS —0.04 0.03 -.14 —| .68 —.09

 

*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001
Severity: Perceived Employment Severity

POS: Perceived Organizational Support

EC: Employer Controllability

ECS: Employer Controllability of Smoking Behaviors
SS: Smoking Sensitivity

53

Table 3. All Participants’ Responses across Questions 1 through 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q1 Q2 Q3 Total Percentage
Positive Responses: All
Participants Q1, Q2 and Q3
Non-specific 23 38 81 142 45.22%
Benefits 1 4 0 5 1.59%
Productivity 0 0 4 4 1.27%
Assistance/health 22 7 12 41 13_()6%
NS environment 51 22 22 95 30.25%
Implementation/policy 3 4 1 8 255%
Save money 0 0 4 4 1.27%
Smoker, wants to quit 4 0 0 4 1.27%
Environment 0 0 1 l 0.32%
Regardless 2 8 0 10 3.18%
TOTAL 106 83 125 314
Q1 Q2 Q3 Total Percentage
Negative Responses: All
Participants Q1, Q2 and Q3
Non-Specific 16 21 18 55 19.03%
Health/qualification 5 2 6 13 4.50%
FUIUFC 5 11 0 16 5.54%
Assistance 8 3 4 15 5.19%
Limited to the workplace 2 0 40 42 14.53%
Implementation/policy 12 9 29 50 17.30%
Personal choice 34 10 39 83 28.72%
Smoker, doesn’t want to
quit I 1 0 2 0.69%
Discrimination 5 0 6 11 3,81%
Productivity 1 0 1 2 0.69%
TOTAL 89 57 143 289

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

 

 

Table 4. Example Answers of Positive Opinions About the Non-Smoking Policy and the
Likelihood of Applying and Accepting a Job Ofler

 

How or why did the How did the non- In general, what do
non-smoking policy smoking policy you think about a
affect your non-smoking policy

affect your
intentions to apply? likelihood of in the workplace?
accepting a job

 

 

 

 

 

Positive
Subcategories offer?
Examples
Non-specific 10 it will make me “Increased my “I’m all for it.”
apply, don't like likelihood”
smoking
Benefits 1 1 “the job and I would accept
benefits given because the pay and
would be more benefits are good,
important” even though I don’t
agree with the policy
Productivity 12 “It would also “it would be great in
increase work” a workplace- better
concentration”
Assistance/health 13 “Because the non- “It increased it. “I think it is great
smoking policy They care about and needs to be
means they do care their employees well implemented
about the being.” everywhere. The
employees’ health company is showing
and well being. I concern for their
employees health”

think that the policy
would have a
positive affect one
me.”
14 “I would be more
inclined to apply
because I would
much rather work in
a non-smoking
atmosphere and
have work friends
who are health non-

“I think it is great. It
gives you an
opportunity to work
in a clean and health
environment.”

 

“The policy would
make accept the job
offer because I
would know that it’s
a smoke free
environment.”

NS environment

 

 

smokers.
Implementation/policy 15 “I like the fact they “I would be slightly
are hard on more likely after
smokers” hearing about the
policy”
Save money 16 “Would make me “saves company in
more apt to apply, future insurance cost
to stop smoking”

as a non smoker
myself. It may also
reduce health care

cost premiums.” _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

 

How or why did the
non-smoking policy
affect your
intentions to apply?

 

How did the non-
smoking policy
affect your
likelihood of

 

In general, what do
you think about a
non-smoking policy
in the workplace?

 

 

 

 

 

Positive accepting a job
Subcategories offer?
Examples
Smoker, wants to quit 17 “As a smoker I
would like to work
for a company that
would force me to
quit.”
Environment 18 “good action for the
environment.”
Regardless 19 “It didn't really. I “I would accept it

 

 

would have applied
either way”

 

either way if it was a

good job”

 

 

56

 

Table 5. Example Answers Addressing Negative Beliefs About the Non-Smoking Policy
and the Likelihood of Applying and Accepting a Job Ofler

 

How or why did the
non-smoking policy
affect your intentions

How did the non-
smoking policy affect
your likelihood of

In general, what do
you think about a
non-smoking policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

workplace

 

 

 

“I don't think they
should restrict
smoking outside of
the workplace. “

 

 

to apply? accepting a job offer? in the workplace?
Negative
Subcategories
Examples
Non-specific 20 “I would never apply “it made me less
to a place with a likely to." “it is ambiguous and
policy like that. “ demanding“
Health/Qualification 21 “Though I understand it had a negative “I think the idea b/c I
the costs associated affect on me because am not a smoker, but
with the health of the company should the company could
employees that be more concerned lose out on good
smoke, I don't believe with my employees who do
that having a legal qualifications." not choose to quit"
habit should be a
disqualification for
employment.
Therefore, I would
probably not apply.”
Future Policy 22 “The policy makes me “Makes me think
wonder how strict about other things
they might be about they may be strict
other habits or upon. So my
personal activities." likelihood would
decrease slightly."
Assistance 23 “It made me hesitate “Being a smoker, my “Perhaps some
trusting the company. accepting ajob assistance should be
If they truly cared decreases because of offered"
about employee what little help they
development they offered with this strict
would have been policy.”
more wiling to offer
support to smokers to
quit.”
Limited to the 24 “In the workplace I

understand and I
could follow it.
Outside regulation is
unfair."

 

57

 

 

Negative
Subcategories

How or why did the

non—smoking policy

affect your intentions
to apply?

How did the non-
smoking policy affect
your likelihood of
accepting a job offer?

In general, what do
you think about a
non-smoking policy
in the workplace?

 

Examples

 

 

 

 

Implementation/policy 25 “I would be slightly "I am not sure the
more hesitant to policy will stand"
accept a job offer
from this company. I
would research the
other policies to
determine if all
“I think the policy is guidelines are so
unfair even though I strict."
don't smoke."
Personal choice 26 “it affected my “I wouldn't want to “I think it is
intention to apply apply to a place that’s unnecessary as
negatively because 1 that into my personal adults, employees
believe it is a personal life.” shall do what they
choice to smoke or please"
not and smoking is
not illegal.”
Smoker, doesn’t 27 “I smoke and I am not “As a smoker, I
wants to quit looking to quit. It would not quit
deters me from because of a
applying" company. I would
quit for myself. I also
would not trust
anyone who would
make such a petty
policy."
Discrimination 28 “I would be less "It's ridiculous. I
likely to apply would be upset ifI
because I feel that the did smoke.’
organizations is
discriminatory"
Production 29

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I think it is a good
idea, however it will
be very hard for
smokers to strictly
stop smoking. This
will in turn affect
their performance at
work."

 

58

 

Table 6. All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 1 (how or why did the non-smoking policy affect your intentions to

apply?)

Q. l - Intentions to Apply
Positive 106 36. 30%

 

Non-directional answers (n = 90)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. no affect 74 82.22%
Negative 89 30487“ not interested 12 13.33%
non-directional 90 30.82% Indifferent 3 3,33%
irrelevant 7 2.40% more money 1 1,1 1%
total responses 292 TOTAL 90

Breakdown of Positive
Responses (n=106)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
it % 1. % k % A % Total Percent
age
Non‘sl’ec‘fic 9 14.2 9 32.14 5 33.33 0 0.00 23 21.70
Benefi‘s 1 1.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.94
Productivrty 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Assistance!
“63"“ 16 25.4 4 14.29 2 13.33 0 0.00 22 20.75
NS

envttonmem 32 50.7 14 50.00 5 33.33 0 0.00 51 48.11

Implementatio
“/PO'WY 0 0.0 0 0.00 3 20.00 0 0.00 3 2.83
save money 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Smoker, wants
to 9”" 3 4.76 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3.77
Envrronment 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 ()_()0 0 0.00
Regardless 2 3.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.89

Total 63 28 15 O 106 100
Percentage
59.43 26.4 14.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Breakdown of
Negative
Opinions (n-89)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
it ‘72 A. ‘70 A % A % Total Percent
age
Non-specific
9 13.64 6 40.00 1, 14.29 0 0 16 17.98
Health/qualific
ation 4 6.06 1 6.67 0.00 5 5.62
Fume 4 6.06 0.00 1 14.29 0 5 5.62
ASS'S‘ance 5 7.58 2 13.33 1 14.29 8 8.99
Limited to the
workplace 2 3.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 2.25
Implementatio
n/policy 10 15.15 0 0.00 2 28.57 0 0 12 13.48
Personal
choice 29 43.94 4 26.67 0 0.00 l 100 34 38.20
Smoker,
doesn’t want
to quit 0 0.00 1 6.67 0 0.00 0 1 1.12
D'scr'm‘m‘m" 4.55 1 6.67 1 14.29 0 5 5.62
Pro“"""""’ 0 0.00 0 0 1 14.29 0 1 1.12
Total 66 15 7 1 89
Percentage 74.16 16.85 7.87 1.1

 

60

 

Table 7. All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 2 (how did the non-smoking policy afiect your likelihood of accepting a job

offer?)

 

 

 

 

Q.2— Accepting a Job Offer Non—Directional (’1 = 144)
Positive 83 28.82% no affect 2 1.39%
Negative 57 19.79% not interested l 1 7.64%
non-directional 144 50.00% ’ Indifferent 6 4.17%
irrelevant 4 1.39% more money 125 86.81%
total responses 288 TOTAL 144

Breakdown of
Positive Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n=83)
Positive Positive No Affect Not
ND Increases Interested
1. % 1t % it % X % Total Percenta
ge
Non- 27.2
specific 9 7 28 60.87 1 25.00 0 0 38 45.78
3mm 3 9.09 1 2.17 0 0.00 0 0 4 4.82
Producti
vity 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Assistan
ce/
health 2 6.06 5 10.87 0 0.00 0 0 7 8.43
NS
environ
ment 10 30.3 9 19.57 3 75.00 0 0 22 26.51
Impleme
ntation/p
olicy 1 3.03 3 6.52 0 0.00 0 0 4 4.82
Save
money 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Smoker,
wants to
quit 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Environ
ment 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Regardle 24.2
$5 8 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 8 9.64
Total 33 46 4 83
Pace” 39.7 55.4
g" 6 2 4.82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

Breakdown of
Negative Opinions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n-57)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
A % l. % it % A % Total Percenta
ge
Non- 25.0
Specific 1 4.17 18 64.29 1 0 1 100% 21 36.84
Health/q
ualificati
on 1 4.17 1 3.57 0.00 2 3.51
Fume 10 41.67 1 3.57 0 0.00 11 19.30
Assistan
ce 1 4.17 2 7.14 0 0.00 0 0 3 5.26
Limited
to the
workplac
e 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Impleme
ntation/p 50.0
olicy 4 16.67 3 10.71 2 0 0 0 9 15.79
Personal 25.0
choice 6 25.00 3 10.71 1 0 0 0 10 17.54
Smoker,
doesn’t
want to
quit I 4.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 1.75
Discrimi
nation 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Producti
vity 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Total 24 28 4 1 57
Percenta 42.1 49.1 7.0
ge 1 2 2 1.75

 

62

 

Table 8. All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 3 (in general, what do you think about a non-smoking policy in the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

workplace?)
Q3- Opinions about a Non-Smoking Policy Non-Directional (n = 17)
in the Workplace No affect 8 47.06%
Positive '25 42:81?" Not Interested 0 0.00%
Negative '43 4897670 Indifferent 9 52.94%
non-directional 17 5.82% ’ More Money 0 0.00%
irrelevant 7 2.40% TOTAL 17
total responses 292
Breakdown of Positive
Responses (n=125)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not Interested
Increases
k % k % 1t % 1. % Total Percentag
e
Non- 65.3
specific 81 2 0 0 81 64.80 0 0 81 64.80
3mm 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Productivi
ty 4 3.23 0 0 4 3.20 0 0 4 3.20
Assistance
/
health 12 9.68 0 0 12 9.60 0 0 12 9.60
NS
environme 16.9
nt 21 4 1 100 22 17.60 0 0 22 17.60
Implemen -
tation/poli
cy l 0.81 0 0 1 0.80 0 0 1 0.80
Save
money 4 3.23 0 0 4 3.20 0 0 4 3.20
Smoker,
wants to
quit 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Environm
ent 1 0.81 0 0 l 0.80 0 0 1 0.80
Regardles
s 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Total 124 1 125 125
Perczntag 99.2
0 0.80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

Breakdown of Negative
Opinions (n-143)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive ND Positive No Affect Not Interested
Increases
it % 1t % l % it % Total Percent
. age

NOT" 12.6 25.0
Spear“: 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 12.59
Health/q
ualificati

on 3.52 1 100 0.00 0 4.20
Future 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Assistanc

e 4 2.82 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 4 2.80
Limited

to the
workplac 28.1

e 40 7 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 40 27.97
Impleme
ntation/p 20.4 50.0

olicy 29 2 0 0 0 0 O 0 29 20.28
Personal 27.4 25.0

choice 39 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 27.27
Smoker,
doesn’t
want to

quit 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Discrimi

nation 6 4.23 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 6 4.20
Producti _
vity 1 0.70 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.70
Total 142 1 0 143
Percenta 99.3

ge 0 0.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. All Participants’ (Both Non-Smokers and Smokers) Answers to Open-Ended
Question 4 (are there other behaviors that you would quit in order to get a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

job?)
Q.4- Behaviors
No 134 60.91%
Yes 77 35.00%
don't know/depends 29 13.18%
Other 10 4.55%
Irrelevant 17 7.73%
number of response 267
NO n = 134
No 86 78.90%
won't give up behavior 3 2.75%
I don't have any bad behaviors 24 22.02%
professionalism 2 1.83%
personal choice 19 17.43%
TOTAL 134
YES n = 77
yes 4 6.06%
anything 4 6.06%
alcohol 23 34.85%
drugs 4 6.06%
caffeine 1 1.52%
physical appearance 1 1 16.67%
unhealthy behaviors 7 10.61%
if harmed other 5 7.58%
if work related 12 18.18%
best opportunity 6 9.09%
TOTAL 77
DEPENDS n=29

depends 13 59.09%
probably not, depends on job/behavior 12 54.55%
maybe 2 9.09%
if employer is looking out for me 2 9.09%
TOTAL 29

65

Table 10. Positive Responses of Non-Smokers across Questions I through 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q2 Q3 Total Percentage
Positive Responses: Non-
Smokes Q1, Q2 and Q3
Non-specific 20 35 70 125 45.07%
Benefits 0 4 0 4 1.41%
Productivity 0 0 4 4 1.41%
Assistance/health 17 6 10 33 1 1.97%
NS environment 50 21 20 91 32.39%
Implementation/policy 3 3 0 6 246%
Save money 0 0 4 4 1.41%
Smoker, wants to quit 0 0 0 () 000%
Environment 0 0 1 1 0.35%
Regardless 2 7 0 9 3.52%
TOTAL 92 76 109 277
Q2 Q3 Total Percentage
Negative Responses: Non-
Smokers Q1, Q2 and Q3
Non-specific 13 10 14 37 18.23%
Health/qualification 2 1 4 7 3.45%
FUIUFC 5 1 1 0 16 7.88%
Assistance 7 1 4 12 5.91%
Limited to the
workplace 0 0 34 34 16.75%
Implementation/policy 10 5 23 38 18.72%
Personal choice 17 7 26 50 24.63%
Smoker, doesn’t want to
quit 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Discrimination 2 0 5 7 3.45%
Productivity 1 0 1 2 0.99%
TOTAL 57 35 11 l 203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66

 

 

Table 11. Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 1
(how or why did the non-smoking policy aflect your intentions to apply?)

Q1 - Intentions to Apply Non-Directional (n = 86)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive 92 31519, no affect 72 83.72%
Negative 57 19.52% not interested I 1 12.79%
non-directional 86 29.45% indifferent 3 3.49%
irrelevant 5 1.71% more money 0 0.00%
total responses 240 TOTAL 86

Breakdown of
Positive Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n=92)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
A % it % k % 7t % Total Percent
age

Non-

specifi

c 8 12.70 7 29.17 5 33.33 0 0.00 20 18.87
Benefi

ts 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Produc

tivity 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Assist

ance/

health 12 19.05 3 12.50 2 13.33 0 0.00 17 16.04
NS

enviro

nment 31 49.21 14 58.33 5 33.33 0 0.00 50 47.17
Imple

mentat

ion/pol

icy 0 0.00 __0 0.00 3 20.00 0 0.00 3 2.83
Save

money 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Smoke

1'.

wants

to quit 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00+
Enviro

nment 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Regar

dless 2 3.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.89
Total 53 24 15 0 0.00 92

Pace" 57.6 26.

tage 1 09 16.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

Breakdown of
Negative Opinions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n=57)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
A % A % A % A % Total Percenta
ge
NOT" 18.6 » 16.6
Spam" 8 0 4 57.14 1 7 0 0.00 13 14.61
Health/qu
alification 2 4.65 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.25
Future 16.6
4 9.30 0 0.00 1 7 0 0.00 5 5.62
Assistanc 1 1.6 16.6
e 5 3 1 14.29 1 7 0 0.00 7 7.87
Limited
to the
workplac
e 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Implemen
tation/pol 16.2 33.3
icy 7 8 0 0.00 2 3 1 100.00 10 1 1.24
Personal 34.8
choice 15 8 2 28.57 0.00 0 0.00 17 19.10
Smoker,
doesn’t
want to
quit 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Discrimin
ation 2 4.65 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.25
Productiv 16.6
ity 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 7 0 0.00 1 1.12
Total 43 7 6 1 57 64.04
Percentag 75 .4 10.5 1.7
e 4 12.28 3 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

Table 12. Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 2

(how did the non-smoking policy affect your likelihood of accepting a job offer?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q2 — Accepting a Job Offer Non-Directional (n = 121)
Positive 76 32.20% no affect 2 1.65%
Negative 35 14.83% not interested 8 6.61%
non-directional 121 51.27% Indifferent l 0.83%
irrelevant 4 1.69% more money 1 10 90.91%
total responses 236 TOTAL 121
Breakdown of
Positive Responses
(n=76)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
A % A % A % A % Total Percenta
ge
Non- 27.2
specific 9 7 25 54.35 1 33.33 0 0.00 35 42.17
Benefits 4.8
3 9.09 1 2.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 2
Producti 0.0
vity 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0
Assistan
ce/ 7.2
health 1 3.03 5 10.87 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 3
NS
environ 30.3
ment 10 0 9 19.57 2 66.66 0 0.00 21 25.30
Impleme
ntation/p 3.6
olicy 0 0.00 3 6.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 1
Save 0.0
money 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0
Smoker,
wants to 0.0
quit 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0
Environ 0.0
ment 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0
Regardle 21.2 8.4
ss 7 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 3
Total 30 43 3 76
Percenta
ge 39.4 56.5
7 8 3.95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

Breakdown of
Negative Opinions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n=35)
Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
A % A % A % A % Total Percenta
ge
Non-
spec'fic 0 0.00 9 60.00 0 0.00 1 100 10 28.57
Health/qu
alification 0 0.00 1 6.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.86
Future 58.8
10 2 l 6.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 l 31.43
Assistanc
e 0 0.00 1 6.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.86
Limited
to the
workplac
e 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Implemen
tation/pol 1 1.7 66.6
icy 2 6 1 6.67 2 7 0 0.00 5 14.29
Personal 23.5 33.3
choice 4 3 2 13.33 1 3 0 0.00 7 20.00
Smoker,
doesn’t
want to
quit 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Discrimin
ation 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Productiv
__ ity 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 16 15 3 1 35
Percentag 45.7 2.8
e 1 42.86 8.57 6

 

70

 

Table 13. Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 3
(in general, what do you think about a non-smoking policy in the workplace?)

Q3 - Opinion about a non-smoking policy in

the workplace Non-Directional (n : 14)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive 109 45.42% no affect 7 500070
Negative 1 1 1 46.25% not interested O 0.00%
non-directional 14 5.83% indifferent 7 ”-00%
irrelevant 6 2.50% more money 0 000%
total responses 240 TOTAL 14
Breakdown of
Positive Responses
(n=109)
Positive Positive No Affect Not
ND Increases Interested
A % A % A % A % Total Percenta
ge
Non- 56.4
specific 70 5 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 70 64.22
36mm" 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Producti
vity 4 3.23 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3.20
Assistan
ce/ »
health 10 8.06 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 8.00
NS
environ 15.3
ment 19 2 1 100 0 0.00 0 0.00 20 16.00
Impleme
ntation/p
olicy 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Save
money 4 3.23 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3.20
Smoker,
wants to
quit 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Environ
ment 1 0.81 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 l 0.80
Regardle
ss 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 108 1 0 109
Percenta 99.0
g" 8 0.92

 

71

 

Breakdown of
Negative Opinions
(n=1 1 1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive ND Positive No Affect Not
Increases Interested
A % A % A % A % Total Percenta
ge
0 -
s13qecilfic 12‘7
14 3 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 14 9.79
Health/q
ualificati
on 3 2.73 1 100 0 0.00 0 0 4 2.80
Fume 0 0 00 0 0 0.00 0 0 00
Assistan
ce 4 3.64 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 4 2.80
Limited
to the
workplac 30.9
e 34 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 34 23.78
Impleme
ntation/p 20.9
olicy 23 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 23 16.08
Personal 23.6
choice 26 4 0 0 0 0.00 O 0 26 18.18
Smoker,
doesn’t
want to
grit 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
Discrimi
nation 5 4.55 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 5 3.50
Producti
vity ‘ 1 0.91 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.70
Total 1 10 l 0 0 111
Percenta 99.1
ge 0 0.90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

Table 14. Non-Smokers’ Answers to Open-Ended Question 4
(are there other behaviors that you would quit in order to get a job?)

Q4- NON-SMOKERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No 109 49.55%
Yes 66 30.00%
don't know/depends 22 10.00%
Other 9 4.09%
Irrelevant 14 6.36%
number of response 220
NO n = 109
No 72 66.06%
won't give up behavior 3 2.75%
I don't have any bad behaviors 22 20.18%
professionalism 1 0.92%
personal choice 1 1 10.09%
TOTAL 109
YES n = 66
yes 3 4.55%
anything 4 6.06%
alcohol 20 30.30%
drugs 3 4.55%
caffeine 1 1.52%
physical appearance 9 13.64%
unhealthy behaviors 4 6.06%
if harmed other 4 6.06%
if work related 12 18.18%
best opportunity 6 9.09%
TOTAL 66
DEPENDS n = 22

depends 8 36.36%
probably not, depends on job/behavior 1 1 50.00%
maybe 1 4.55%
if employer is looking out for me 2 9.09%
TOTAL 22

73

 

1.(X) —

 

 

 

 

 

between
. 0.60 4
Pre-attractronand 04014 I”. ~
Post-attraction 0'20 4 """""""" a» ................ . —+— HISJSD above
Scores 0'00 . R/M ----I- ECSJSD below
(ie., Decrease in 0'20
0 - mrn] -Oo40
Attraction) - '
'0.“) 1 T 1
ISD below nean ISD above
Perceived Errployrrert Severity

Figure 1. Two way interaction between severity and employer controllability of smoking
behaviors for predicting decrease in organizational attraction

74

 

—O— SS_ISD above
-- -I- -- SS_ISD below

 

 

 

 

 

 

-0,60 1 r fl
ISD below trean ISD above

Perceived Ermloyrrert Severity

Figure 2. Two way interaction between severity and smoking sensitivity for predicting
decrease in organizational attraction

 

75

 

Post-attraction ' - i—+—ECS_ISDabove
------ ECS_ISDbe10w

 

 

 

 

 

18D below n'ean ISD above
Perceived Orgirrizat'nml Support

Figure 3. Two way interaction between perceived organizational support and employer
controllability of smoking behaviors for predicting decrease in organizational attraction

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dflemnce 0 80 4
between 31110601 A4 \ \ +POS_1SDabove&
Pie-attraction 0.40 - 'X SS_ISD aboxe
Post-attraction 0.20 1 - a - POS_1SD above&
Scores (1m % SS_ISD below
(i.e., Decrease 11:10.20 fl —A- POS_ISD below&
OrganrzatnthAO - SS_ISD above
Attraction) 4160 1 _ 1 , --x—--POS_1SDbeIow&
ISD below mean 130 above SS-ISD below
Perceived Errployrrent Severity

Figure 4. Three way interaction among severity, pos, and smoking sensitivity for
predicting decrease in organizational attraction

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditfere ‘ A,
0.80 4 \ .
between 31110 60 _ X \ —+—-ECS_ISD abme &
Pie-attraction 0.40 - - 1x. SS_ISD above
Post-attracmn 0‘20 1 I . ‘5‘;-~ ..... ~.. . g . 13cs_1soabove&
. 3w” . 0.00 ~ .______—l--——\—~———)c< SS—ISD be”
(re. Decrease r1020 - ‘ “‘5 \z —A— BCS_ISD be10w&
OWN-0.40 _ SS_ISD above
mm") -0.60 z , , --x—--Bcs_1sobebw&
rso below mean 1SD above SS-ISD below
Perceived Organizational Sipport

Figure 5. Three way interaction among pos, employer controllability of smoking
behaviors, and smoking sensitivity for predicting decrease in organizational attraction

78

Appendix A— Job Advertisements

Please imagine that you are applying for a job. Read the following job ads by these two
companies. After reading these job ads, please answer the questions that follow.

 

 

A. Company: Bradley & Associates

Title: Account Associate (Entry-level)

Full Time

Location: Detroit, MI

Pay: $45,000

4 weeks paid vacation

Comprehensive Benefit Plan: includes dental, vision, prescriptions, life-insurance

Bradley & Associates is an advertising agency, our mission is to provide'effective
communicating and creativity to help clients market their products. This opportunity will
provide you with useful experiences, advancing your knowledge of the field of
advertising. You will begin working on diverse accounts ranging from beauty products
to automotive to retail for Fortune 500 companies. Working with the creative team you'll
learn how the agency works as you will be responsible for tracking projects throughout
the creative, media, accounting, desktop publishing and production departments.
Promotions are likely within the first two years. Requirements: working toward a
Bachelors Degree in Communication, Advertising, Public Relations or a related field.

 

The below statements are about Bradley & Associates. The next page contains statements
about Simon & Associates. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each
statement by circling a number that best represents your agreement or disagreement
level.

ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS- BRADLEY
A. General Attraction- Bradley & Associates
1. For me, Bradley & Associates would be a great place to work
2. I would not be interested in Bradley & Associates except as a last resort ®
3. Bradley & Associates is attractive to me as a place for employment
4. I am interested in learning more about Bradley & Associates.
5. A job at Bradley & Associates is appealing to me
B. Job Pursuit Intentions- Bradley & Associates
1. I would accept a job offer from Bradley & Associates.
2. Bradley & Associates would be one of my first choices as an employer.
3. If Bradley & Associates invited me for a job interview I would go.
4. I would exert a great deal of effort to work for Bradley & Associates.
5. I would recommend Bradley & Associates to a friend.

Participants are then given additional information pertaining to a health policy.

79

 

 

 

Appendix B — ADDITIONAL COMPANY IN FOMRATION

Bradley & Associates was established in 1987, since its conception the agency has continued to
grow as our cliental has grown. We work toward one common goal: “to create advertising that
will deliver a demonstrable impact to our clients' businesses.” Our experience, breadth of
communications expertise, and culture allow us to deliver on this mission for clients. Bradley &
Associates is a world where research, creativity, and reason combine to broadcast our message to
the right audience at the right time. Here employees develop an understanding in all the areas
pertaining to effective advertising. Within the last few years Bradley & Associates has taken 1
steps to ensure and promote the health of their employees. Starting January 1" of this year the
company instituted a non-smoking policy for employees.

High Employment Severity Condition

Starting January 1" 2006, we at Bradley & Associates implemented a mandatog non-smoking
policy for employees on and off the job. This mandatog policy extends to all new hires. As a
new employee of Bradley & Associates your participation in the non-smoking policy is required
in order to maintain employment. The President of the Company strictly enforces the non-
smoking policy. Once hired, new employees will have a year to quit smoking. To ensure
employees’ compliance, random smoking tests are administered to ensure compliance after the
one year time frame. New employees as well as existing employees who fail their test,
employment will be terminated. '

Low Employment Severity Condition

Starting January 1" 2006, we at Bradley & Associates implemented a voluntary non-smoking
policy for employees on and off the job. This voluntary policy extends to include all new hires.

~ As an employee of Bradley & Associates your particQation is optional, but not required by the
company. The Personnel Manager oversees the non-smoking policy. It is important that all
applicants are aware of this optional policy. We hope that employees will self-select themselves
to participate.

High Organizational Assistance Condition

Here at Bradley & Associates, we understand that quitting smoking can be a difficult process. To
help support smokers, we provide a diverse range of opportunities for support in the form of
smoking cessation classes, medication, and acupuncture and hypnotism appointments. We are
prepared to cover all financial costs associated with a smoker’s quitting process .Working with
us, we will provide continually support through the process of quitting. Here at Bradley &
Associates-we equally value our employees’ health and productivity. Support is provided at no
cost to employees. Employees will have the freedom to choose which cessation methods and'
programs to use and when and how long they participate in the cessation program of their choice.
We are extremely accommodating. Which ever method employees choose, we will provide the
necessary resources to help them succeed.

Low Organizational Assistance Condition
Here at Bradley & Associates, we understand that smoking can be a difficult habit to quit. We
feel that it is crucial that smokers find support throughout this process. If assistance is needed we

are prepared to offer recommendations for the appropriate parties to address. It is necessary that
smokers seek out the necessary resources to effectively quit smoking and to remain tobacco-free.

80

The company will not cover the financial costs associated with quitting smoking. It is important
to have a support system outside of the company that can assist you through the quitting process.

However, an employee’s choices are secondary to their work. An employee’s choice can not
interfere with their work schedule and productivity.

81

Appendix C — Questions

Please indicate the extent that you agree with each statement by circling a number that
best represents your agreement or disagreement level.

ORGANIZATIONAL ASSISTANCE (i.e., perceived organizational support)
1. Bradley & Associates will care about my well-being.
2. Bradley & Associates will value my contributions.
3. Bradley & Associates will show little concern for me. (reverse—code)
4. Bradley & Associates will care about my opinions.
5. Bradley & Associates will strongly consider my goals and values.
6. Help will be available from Bradley & Associates when I have a problem.
7. If given the opportunity, Bradley & Associates would take advantage of me.
(reverse-code)
8. I believe Bradley & Associates will offer assistance to smokers to help them quit
smoking.
9. Ibelieve Bradley & Associates will want to help smokers quit smoking.
10. I believe Bradley & Associates will be capable of helping smokers quit smoking.
11. I believe Bradley & Associates will follow through with their efforts to help
smokers quit.
12. Bradley & Associates is credible in its effort to help employees.
13. Bradley & Associates is genuine in its effort to help employees.
14. Bradley & Associates is sincere in its effort to help employees.
15. I believe Bradley & Associates will assist in helping employees quit smoking.
16. Bradley & Associates will offer assistance in the future to all employees.
17. Bradley & Associates will want me to succeed.

Please indicate your agreement with these statements referring to the non-smoking policy
at Bradley & Associates.

EMPLOYMENT SEVERITY - general items

1. I believe the non-smoking policy is severe.

2. I believe the non-smoking policy will be strictly enforced.

3. I believe adherence to the non—smoking policy is required to gain employment.

4. I believe the non-smoking policy has serious negative consequences for employees.

5. I believe the consequences of the policy are harsh.

6. I believe employment is contingent upon adherence to the non-smoking policy.

7. I believe the organization is serious about implementing the non-smoking policy.
Employment severity — smoker-specific items

8. I believe the non-smoking policy is detrimental to smokers’ employment.

9. I believe the non-smoking policy is serious to smokers’ employment.

10. I believe the non-smoking policy has significant consequences for smokers’

employment.
11. I believe the non-smoking policy will prevent smokers from gaining employment.

82

Please rate your attraction to Bradley and Associates by circling a number that best
represents your agreement level with each statement.

ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRACTIVNESS

A. General Attraction
1. For me, Bradley & Associates would be a great place to work.
2. I would not be interested in Bradley & Associates except as a last resort. (reverse-
code) i
3. Bradley & Associates is attractive to me as a place for employment.
4. I am interested in learning more about Bradley & Associates.
5. A Job at Bradley & Associates is appealing to me

B. Job Pursuit Intentions
l. I would accept a job offer from Bradley & Associates.
2. Bradley & Associates would be one of my first choices as an employer.
3. If Bradley & Associates invited me for a job interview I would go.
4. I would exert a great deal of effort to work for Bradley & Associates.
5. I would recommend Bradley & Associates to a friend.

Open-Ended Questions
Please write your responses to the following questions

1. How or why did the non-smoking policy affect your intentions to apply?

2. How did the non-smoking policy affect your likelihood of accepting a job offer?
3. In general, what do you think about a non-smoking policy in the workplace?

4. Are there other behaviors that you would quit in order to get a job?

Please answer the following questions by circling a number that best represent your
agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Employer controllability
1. An employer has the right to tell employees what to do.
2. An employer has the power to tell employees what to do.
3. An employer had control over employees’ behavior.
4. An employer can not tell employees what to do. (reverse-code)
5. An employer can regulate employees’ actions.
6. Employees have control over their behaviors outside of work. (reverse-code)
7. Employees are free to do whatever they want to do outside of work. (reverse-code)
8. An employer can regulate employees’ behaviors outside of work.

Employer controllability of smoking behaviors

1. An employer has the right to tell employees not to smoke.
2. An employer has the power to tell employees not to smoke

83

3. An employer has control over employees' smoking behavior.

4. An employer can not tell employees to quit smoking.

5. An employer can regulate employees' smoking behavior.

6. Employees have control over their smoking behavior outside of work.

7. Employees are free to smoke outside of work.

8. An employer can regulate employees’ smoking behaviors outside of work.

Smoking Sensitivity
1. I don't like being around smokers.
2. I avoid bars that allow smoking inside.
3. I prefer going to a non-smoking restaurant.
4. People should not smoke when others are close-by.
5. Other people's smoking does not bother me.
6. I do not enjoy sitting next to smokers.

Please answer the following questions about yourself.
1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age: years old
3. Your academic standing: freshmen _ sophomore _ junior _ senior _
graduate _

4. Ethnicity:

 

5. Do you smoke? Yes No

 

If Yes, please continue answering the following questions

Self-Efficacy

A. General self-efficacy concerning smoking
1. Quitting smoking is not a problem for me.
2. I can quit smoking at anytime.
3. I am able to quit smoking if necessary.
4. Quitting smoking is not difficult for me.
5. I am capable of quitting smoking.

B. Quitting smoking for employment
1. If it is necessary for getting an ideal job, quitting smoking is not a problem for me.
2. I could quit smoking if my future employer asked me to.
3. I am able to quit smoking if necessary for my employment.
4. Quitting smoking would not be difficult for me, if it was necessary for getting an
ideal job.
5. I am capable of quitting smoking if required for employment.

Smoking Status

1. Do you smoke more on the weekdays weekend social situations
2. What purpose does smoking serve for you?

84

S9109.“

Have you tried quitting?

If yes to the above questions, what cessation methods have you tired?
At what age did you start smoking?

How many years have you been smoking?

How many cigarettes do you smoke in a week?

85

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N ., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend
to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 16, 219 - 237.

Anderson, D. R. (2003). Building a first workforce: The sky’s the limit with population
health Management. Absolute Advantage, 4-9.

Avery, R. D., & Ivanevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: Review,
propositions and Research Suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-
132.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191—215.

Bauer, T., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influence of ecological
stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 445—458.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press: New York.

Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work

adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 44, 32 — 54.

Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. E. (1989). Do people make the place? An
examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel
Psychology, 42, 561-580.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. E. (1989). Do people make the place? An
examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel
Psychology, 42, 561-58 1.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preference and job search decisions: A person-
organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-349.

Carless, S. A. (2005). Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of
organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411-429.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (February 26, 2002). CDC Releases Data on
Smoking Prevalence, Attitudes. Retrieved on April 23, 2006, from

86

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (August 23, 2004). Reducing tobacco use.
Retrieved on February 3, 2004, from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/bb tobaccol.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (February 9. 2005). Adult cigarette smoking in
the United States: Current estimate. Retrieved on February 11, 2004, from
http://wwwcdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/AduItCigaretteSmoking_FactSheet.htm

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459 — 484.

Cohen, J ., Cohen, R, West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
LEA.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1990). An experimental test of the impact of drug-testing
programs on potential job applicants’ attitudes and intentions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 127 — 131.

Edington, D., & Musich, S. (2003). Keeping healthy employees healthy is key to cost
containment, productivity. Absolute Advantage, 22-25.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhodes, L. (2001).
Reciprocation and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 42-57.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150—167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research.

Gemignani, J. (1997). When workers fight flab. Business and Health, 15(July), 39.
Goetzel, R., & Ozminkowski, R. (2000). Health and productivity management: Emerging
opportunities for health promotion professionals for the 21St century. American

Journal of Health Promotion, 14(4), 211 — 214.

Greer, C. R. & Labig, C. E. (1987). Employees reactions to disciplinary action. Human
Relations, 40, 507-524.

Holland, IL. (1976). Vocational Preference. In Dunnette MD (Ed.) Handbook of
Industrial and Vocational Psychology (pp.521-570). Chicago: Rand, McNally.

Highhouse, S., Levens, S., &Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations.
Emotional and Psychological Measures, 63, 986-1001.

87

Hunnicutt, D. (2001). Discover the power of wellness. Business & Health, 19(3), 40 — 45.

Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation & exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L.
Putnam (Eds.). The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances
in Theory, Research & Methods (pp. 732-818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

J anz, N .K. & Becker, M.H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. Health
Education Quarterly, 11, 1—47.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261 — 271.

Keon, T. L., Latack, J. C., & Wanous, J. P. (1982). Image congruence and the treatment
of difference scores in organizational research. Human Relations, 35, 155 — 166.

Mastrangelo, P. M. (1997). Do college students still prefer companies without
employment drug testing? Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 325 — 337.

Murphy, K. R., Thornton 111, G. C., & Reynolds, D. H. (1990). College students’ attitudes
toward employee drug testing programs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 615 — 631.

Pelletier, K. (1999). A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies
of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the
workplace: 1995 — 1998 update (TV). American Journal of Health Promotion, 13,
333 — 345.

Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling
conflict with subordinates, and subordinate performance and satisfaction. Journal
of Psychology, 123, 195-210.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

Rosenstock, I. (1984). Historical Origins of Health Belief Model. Health Education
Monographs, 2, 328-353.

Rosse, J. G., Ringer, R. C., & Miller, J. L. (1996). Personality and drug testing: An
exploration of the perceived fairness of alternatives to urinanalysis. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 10, 459 — 475.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures

and decision: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management,
26, 565 - 606.

88

 

Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15, 283-310.

Schaeffer, M. A., Snelling, A. M., Stevenson, M. 0., & Karch, R. C. (1994). Worksite
health promotion evaluation. In J. P. Opatz (Ed.), Economic impact of worksite
health promotion (pp. 67 — 98). Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Schaubroeck, J ., Ganser, D. C., & Jones, J. P. (1998). Organization and occupation
influences in the attraction-selection-attrition process. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 869-891.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437 — 453.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747 - 773.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-484.

Schultz, M., Lee, A., & Lacy, E. (January 27, 2005). Workers fume as firms ban smoking
at home: Mich. Firms prohibit cigarette use, even off the job, angering privacy
advocates. Detroit News. Retrieved on April 26, 2006, from
http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0501/27/A01-7l823.htm

Sugarman, S. D. (2003). “Lifestyle” discrimination in employment. Berkeley Journal of
Employment & Labor Law, 24, 377-438.

Truxillo, D. M., Baier, T. N., & Paronto, M. E. (2002). Reactions to organization alcohol
testing and treatment programs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 31—45.

U. S. Department of Health & Human Services. (September 2003). Prevention makes
common “cents.” Retrieved on April 10, 2005, from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/prevention/index.shtml#tobacco.

Unger, J .B., Rohrbach, L. A., Howard, K. A., Cruz, T. B., Johnson, C. A., & Chen, X.
(1999). Attitudes toward anti-tobacco policy among California youth:
Associations with smoking status, psychosocial variables and advocacy actions.

Health Education Research, 14, 751 - 763.

Wieland, B. (2004). Okemos firm bans all smoking. Lansing State Journal. Retrieved on
August 4, 2005, from http://lsj.com/apps/pbcsdll

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeal: The Extended Parallel Process
model. Communication Monographs, 58, 329-349.

Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process
model. Communication Monographs, 61, 113-134.

89

Young, N. (January 30, 2005). Where there's smoke, you're fired. Sunday Herald.
Retrieved on April 26, 2006, from http://wwwsundayherald.com/47430.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and
lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423.

Zoller, H. M. (2004). Manufacturing health: Employee perspectives o problematic
outcomes in a workplace health promotion initiative. Western Journal of
Communication, 68, 278 — 301.

90

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LIBRARIES

l111111111111111111111111111111