Skip to main content
Log in

Potential job applicant reactions to employee drug testing: The effect of program characteristics and individual differences

  • Full Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An experiment varied two aspects of employee drug-testing programs: the purpose of the program (to rehabilitate or to punish) and the drug-testing selection method (for due cause or random and mandatory). Dependent variables were potential job applicants' attitudes toward, intention to apply to, and willingness to accept a job offer from the company. Although the manipulations had no effects, several individual difference variables (personal use of drugs, attitudes toward drugs and drug testing, and subjective norms toward drug testing) predicted the dependent variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnes, A. (1986, May 31). Editor makes a case against drug testing.Editor and Publisher, pp.60–61

  • Cohen, S. (1984). Drugs in the workplace.Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 12, Sec 2, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1989). A model of employee responses to drug-testing programs.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 173–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1988). A critical review of the assumptions underlying drug testing.Journal of Business and Psychology, 3, 22–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drafting drug/alcohol policies. (1986, June).Personnel Journal, pp. 35–40.

  • Drug testing to rise among U. S. businesses. (September, 1987).Journal of Accountancy, pp. 54–55.

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, H., Giacobbe, J., & French, J. L. (1989). Attitudes toward employee and employer rights in the workplace.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1987). Dimensions and characteristics of personnel manager perceptions of effective drug-testing programs.Personnel Psychology, 40, 745–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. K. (1986, February). A critique of three corporate drug abuse policies.Personnel Journal, pp. 96–101.

  • Hanson, D. J. (1986, June 2). Drug abuse testing programs gaining acceptance in workplace.Chemical and Engineering News, pp. 7–14.

  • Hartstein, B. A. (1987). Drug testing in the workplace: A primer for employers.Employee Relations Law Journal, 12, 577–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, F.S. (1989).The Northwestern Lindquist-Endicott Report, 1989. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Placement Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, M. F., Ferris, G. R., & Ratcliff, S. L. (1988, July). Practices and attitudes of substance abuse testing.Personnel Administrator, pp. 72–78.

  • Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior.Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 243–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muczyk, J. P., & Heshizer, B. P. (1988, March–April). Mandatory drug testing: Managing the latest Pandora's box.Business Horizons, 14–22.

  • O'Keefe, A. M. (1987, June). The case against drug testing.Psychology Today, pp. 34–38

  • O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, M. (1988, March–April). Random drug testing in the workplace: Implications for human resource management.Business Horizons, 23–27.

  • Schein, D. D. (1986, July). How to prepare a company policy on substance abuse control.Personnel Journal, pp. 30–38.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, P. D. (1981). Labor perceptions of drug use and drug programs in the workplace.Journal of Drug Issues, 11, 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, P. D., & Hubbard, R. L. (1985). Management styles, perceptions of substance abuse, and employee assistance programs in organizations.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(3), 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. L., & Bowden, C. (1989). Effects of job applicant drug testing practices on reactions to drug testing.Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 290–294.

  • Stone, D. L., & Kotch, D. A. (1989). Individuals' attitudes toward organizational drug testing policies and practices.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 518–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975).Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrich, J. T. (1988). Beyond testing: Coping with drugs at work.Harvard Business Review, 88(1), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crant, J.M., Bateman, T.S. Potential job applicant reactions to employee drug testing: The effect of program characteristics and individual differences. J Bus Psychol 7, 279–290 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015755

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015755

Keywords

Navigation