See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/21196148

Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee

Attitudes and Job Performance

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · November 1991

DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.76.5.698 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

856 14,469

2 authors, including:

Russell Cropanzano
University of Colorado Boulder
150 PUBLICATIONS   36,816 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WORK-FAMILY CROSSOVER: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Russell Cropanzano on 01 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1991, Vol. 76, No. 5, 698-707 0021-9010/91/$3.00

Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor

of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance
Mary A. Konovsky Russell Cropanzano
A. B. Freeman School o f Business Colorado State University
Tulane University

Although management of drug testing programs is becoming a critical organizational issue, no

systematic conceptual framework has been applied to the study of employee reactions to drug
testing. In this study an organizational justice framework was used to explain and predict the
relationships among two types of justice (procedural justice and outcome fairness), employee
attitudes (job satisfaction, commitment, and management trus0, and behavior (turnover intentions
and performance). Survey data from 195 employees in a pathology laboratory indicated that justice
predicts employee attitudes and performance. Specifically, procedural justice, but not outcome
fairness, predicted all 5 criterion variables. These results demonstrate the importance of proce-
dural justice perceptions for predicting employee reactions to drug testing programs.

Drug-related issues have become a very high priority in busi-
ness organizations. In a survey o f 224 Fortune 1,000 chief execu-
tives, 79% o f the respondents (including 18 governors and 23
mayors) reported believing that substance abuse was a signifi-
cant problem in their organizations (Freudenheim, 1988). This
figure contrasts sharply with the results o f an earlier Conference
Board survey of 45 company leaders, in which only 33% re-
ported a significant employee drug abuse problem (Rush &
Brown, 1971). Gust and Walsh (1989) also demonstrated that
drug abuse is currently an important issue to human resource
managers.
The increasing business concern with drug-related issues is
frequently justified by the increasing prevalence of drug use
and its negative effect on the organization's bottom line. A 1987
National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA; Wrich, 1988) report
revealed that 65% o f 18- to 25-year-olds have had experiences
with illicit drugs, 44% within the past year. Another 1987 sur-
vey reported that 19% o f employed Americans between 20 and
40 years old had used an illicit drug during the month prior to
the survey; 29% had used drugs at least once during the pre-
vious year (Schuster, 1987). Furthermore, drug use has been
linked to a variety of organizational costs, including accidents,
lost productivity, and health care (e.g., Berry & Boland, 1977;
Trice & Roman, 1972).
In response to increasingly apparent drug use and its effects
on organizational costs, employers are becoming more likely to
test current and potential employees for drug use. Recent statis-
tics indicate that 50% of all medium and large organizations
now test either current or prospective employees for drug use
(Guthrie & Olian, 1989). Another survey revealed that 25% of
We would like to acknowledge Jerry Greenberg and an anonymous
reviewer for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of this arti-
cle.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Mary A. Konovsky, A.B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane Univer-
sity, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-5669.
698
Fortune 500 companies have implemented drug testing pro-
grams within the last 5 years (Lahey, 1986). Furthermore, be-
tween 10% and 15% o f organizations with 50 or more employees
and without any existing drug testing program are considering
implementing drug testing in the near future (United States
Department o f Labor, Bureau of Statistics, 1989).
Because o f increased drug testing activity in organizations,
employee drug testing responses are now a salient management
issue. Negative employee responses are o f special concern and
may be linked to such factors as fear of retribution resulting
from a positive test result (Greenfield, Karren, & Giacobbe,
1989; Karren, 1989; Seeber & Lehman, 1989). Invasion-of-pri-
vacy concerns during drug testing may also result in negative
employee attitudes (Stone & Vine, 1989). Furthermore, em-
ployee reactions to drug testing may involve reduced perfor-
mance (Crouch, Webb, Buller, & Rollins, 1989). Drug testing, in
other words, might reduce workplace drug use, but at the cost o f
other, more positive, work behaviors.
Understanding the origins of employees' reactions to drug
testing is crucial for successfully managing testing programs.
Unfortunately, little well-researched information presently ex-
ists. Although several studies have recently examined individ-
uals' responses to various aspects of drug screening (e.g., Crant
& Bateman, 1990; Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1987; Stone &
Kotch, 1989), these studies have not been guided by any strong
conceptual framework or theory. As a result, it is difficult to
organize the broad array of results concerning the characteris-
tics o f drug testing programs examined by this research. In
addition, an absence of theory leads to unsystematic examina-
tion of the effects o f drug testing programs. We believe that
drug testing research is strongly in need of a guiding theory or
conceptual framework.
One widely recommended framework for investigating drug
testing is that of organizational justice (Greenberg, 1987). Ac-
cording to D. I. MacDonald, a former White House special
advisor on drug abuse, workplace drug screening may be gener-
ally accepted by the American people only if it is considered fair
and humane (quoted in Roman & Blum, in press). This senti-
 DRUG TESTING FAIRNESS
ment parallels that of justice philosophers (e.g., Rawls, 1971),
who propose that justice applies whenever there is an allotment
of something rationally regarded as disadvantageous or advan-
tageous. Drug testing researchers (e.g., Crant & Bateman, 1989;
Murphy, Thornton, & Prue, 1991) have also recommended ap-
plying justice concepts to drug testing. In the following para-
graphs, we briefly review the existing organizational fairness
research and demonstrate that, although justice issues have not
been directly examined in previous drug testing research, con-
cepts consistent with notions from the organizational justice
literature have been implicitly used.
Early research on organizational justice focused on out-
comes (e.g., Adams, 1965), which are most often conceptualized
as the ratio of one's inputs to outcomes (e.g., Adams & Freed-
man, 1976). Drug testing researchers have examined both jus-
tice elements. On the input side, for example, Murphy et al.
(1991) and Stone and Vine (1989) found that employees' reac-
tions to drug tests depended in part on the characteristics of the
job (e.g., people accepted drug testing when employees' im-
paired performance led to a high degree of danger for all). An-
other input is the type of drug the individual is using. People
react less favorably to alcohol testing than to assessment for
other drugs (Murphy, Thornton, & Reynolds, 1990), even
though alcohol abuse may do more damage to the national
economy (Bureau of National Affairs, 1986). Stone and Vine
(1989) found that tests providing employers with medical infor-
mation were perceived as invasions of privacy One justice out-
come concerns the personnel action taken against individuals
who test positive. Research has demonstrated that employees
are happier when the organization uses rehabilitation than
when it uses termination (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1987; Stone
& Kotch, 1989).
Researchers have also identified factors in addition to out-
come fairness that affect justice perceptions. Thibaut and
Walker (1975) demonstrated that the procedures associated
with decision making affect fairness perceptions (see also
Folger & Greenberg, 1985). The importance of procedural fair-
ness has been established in a number of organizational deci-
sion contexts, including pay raise decisions (Folger & Konovsky,
1989), performance appraisals (Greenberg, 1986), layoffs
(Brockner & Greenberg, 1990), and budget decision making
(Bies & Shapiro, 1987).
Greenberg (1990) recently noted that procedural justice
refers to at least two elements: (a) the structural characteristics
of a decision and (b) the quality of the interpersonal treatment
associated with decision making (see Bies & Moag, 1986, for a
review). Leventhal (1980) provided a comprehensive model of
procedurally fair structural characteristics when he noted that
fair procedures include input from all affected parties, are con-
sistently applied, suppress bias, are as accurate as possible, are
correctable (e.g., provide for appeals), and are ethical.
Current research has demonstrated the importance of the
structural aspects of decision-making procedures in the drug
testing context. Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1987) found, for ex-
ample, that drug testing programs were rated as effective when
they were implemented with union support (e.g., provided
worker voice), offered a chance to appeal, and used more accu-
rate testing techniques. Stone and Kotch (1989) showed that
workers approved drug testing when they received advance no-
699
tice of those tests. Murphy, Thornton, and Reynolds (1990)
found that employees were less favorable toward random test-
ing than toward testing with due cause.
Greenberg's (1990) second characteristic of fair procedures,
the quality of interpersonal treatment, refers to, among other
things, treating the individual with politeness and civility One
aspect of this treatment is to adequately explain decision proce-
dures-particularly after a negative outcome (Bies, 1987; Bies &
Shapiro, 1987). Although no study has explicitly examined the
role of explanations, Crant and Bateman (1990) found that busi-
ness students were favorably predisposed toward drug screen-
ing if there was a high perceived need for the program. This
perceived need may have provided a reasonable justification
for organizational drug testing.
In the present study, we examined the relationships between
procedural justice and outcome fairness perceptions and em-
ployee attitudes and performance in the drug testing context.
Our process and outcome measures assessed subjective justice
or the capacity of a procedure or outcome to enhance fairness
judgments. Subjective justice can be contrasted with objective
justice, which refers to actual or factual justice (Lind & Tyler,
1988). Research on both subjective and objective justice is im-
portant for developing justice theories, and our exploration of
fairness perceptions is an important first step for (a) establish-
ing the importance of justice perceptions in the drug testing
context and (b) providing a foundation for further exploration
of the links between objective and subjective justice.
We separately evaluated the two procedural justice compo-
nents (e.g., structural aspects of the procedures and explana-
tions) identified by Greenberg (1990). We also included a mea-
sure of outcome fairness to evaluate the impact of both proce-
dural justice and outcome fairness on employee attitudes and
performance. Our study included three employee attitudes (job
satisfaction, trust in management, and organizational commit-
ment) and two behavior-related measures (turnover intentions
and job performance). We discuss our hypotheses about each of
these employee responses in the following paragraphs.
Our first hypotheses considered the relationships between
justice perceptions and employee evaluations of(a) the organiza-
tion and (b) the organization's leaders. Lind and Tyler (1988)
proposed that organizational and leadership endorsement re-
quire the existence of employee loyalty, which is more likely to
emerge when employees experience procedural justice, rather
than outcome fairness, in decision making. Procedural justice
is associated with employee loyalty because the use of fair pro-
cedures generates expectations of fair treatment in the long run.
These fair-treatment expectations lead to a generalized sense of
positive regard for, and attachment to, the organization and its
leaders. In contrast, receiving a fair outcome on any particular
occasion does not imply that fair outcomes will always be forth-
coming, and the loyalty necessary for positive organizational
evaluations does not emerge. Our first hypothesis, therefore,
was that procedural justice perceptions, but not outcome fair-
ness perceptions, would be positively related to management
trust, a measure of employees' endorsement of the organiza-
tion's leaders. Our second hypothesis was that organizational
commitment, a measure of employees" overall organizational
evaluation, would also be positively related only to procedural
justice perceptions.
700 MARY A. KONOVSKY AND RUSSELL CROPANZANO
Our study introduced a refinement in measuring commit-
ment. Most empirical findings for a relationship between com-
mitment and procedural justice perceptions (e.g., Folger &
Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1990) have been based
on measures of affective commitment. Recently, however,
Meyer and Allen (1984) identified at least two independent
commitment factors. The first of these is affective commit-
ment, a measure of workers' endorsement of and emotional
attachment to the institution--a measure typically included in
research on organizational justice (e.g., Folger & Konovsky,
1989) and organizational support (e.g., Eisenberger, Fasolo, &
Davis-LaMastro, 1990). The second commitment factor, contin-
uance commitment, is an attachment to the organization based
on the perceived costs of leaving. Continuance commitment is
grounded largely in economic costs and benefits and reflects a
need to remain with the organization; affective commitment
reflects a desire to remain with the organization. More specifi-
cally, our second hypothesis was that fair procedures, but not
fair outcomes, would increase affective commitment because
the presence of fair procedures engenders loyalty to the organi-
zation, which serves as the basis for affective attachment to the
organization.
Our third hypothesis was that our justice measures would not
be related to continuance commitment. Continuance commit-
ment indicates a need to remain with an organization because
of personal investments in the job or a lack of viable alterna-
tives. Because continuance commitment is not based on affec-
tive attachment to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984;
Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990), we found no basis for proposing
a relationship between justice perceptions and continuance
commitment. Hypotheses 2 and 3 clarify the basis for relating
commitment to justice perceptions.
Our fourth hypothesis was that the relationship between out-
come fairness perceptions and job satisfaction would be
stronger than the relationship between procedural justice per-
ceptions and job satisfaction. Because receiving a fair outcome
on any particular occasion does not imply that fair outcomes
will always be forthcoming, outcome fairness generally predicts
only context-specific responses. Job satisfaction is a context-
specific attitude and is therefore likely to be more strongly re-
lated to outcome fairness than to procedural justice.
Beyond assessing the impact of justice perceptions on em-
ployee attitudes, we also explored the relationship between jus-
tice perceptions and employee behaviors (job performance)
and behavioral intentions (turnover intentions). In general, be-
havioral intentions are correlated with actual behaviors (Fish-
bein & Ajzen, 1975). Both previous research (e.g., Prestholdt,
Lane, & Matthews, 1987) and a meta-analytic review (Steel &
Ovalle, 1984), for example, found that turnover intentions were
related to actual turnover.
We proposed a relationship between fair treatment, be it in
the form of procedures or outcomes, and low turnover inten-
tions. Positive, discretionary action by the organization that
benefits employees, such as fair treatment by the organization
and its leaders, will signify to those employees that the organiza-
tion values their contributions and cares about their well-being
(Eisenberger et al., 1990). This perception of being cared about
should, based on a norm of reciprocity, motivate employees to
behave positively toward the organization. Remaining with the
organization is one such positive response. Hypothesis 5, there-
fore, was that there would be an inverse relationship between
our justice measures and turnover intentions. Indirect empiri-
cal support for this hypothesis was provided by Crant and Bate-
man (1990), who found a relationship between the presence of a
drug testing program and subjects' intentions to apply to the
organization. Cram and Bateman did not, however, investigate
the role of fairness, nor did they examine turnover intentions.
Predicting a relationship between fairness perceptions and
turnover intentions may first appear to be contrary to our pre-
vious prediction of no relationship between justice perceptions
and continuance commitment. The presence of a relationship
between justice perceptions and turnover intentions, however,
does not preclude the absence of a relationship between justice
perceptions and continuance commitment. Justice perceptions
and continuance commitment may both be correlated with
turnover intentions yet be unrelated to each other. Concep-
tually, this pattern of interrelationship may be best explained by
noting that continuance commitment refers to specific calcula-
tions of the costs and benefits of remaining in the organization.
Turnover intentions, on the other hand, represent a global as-
sessment of an individual's likelihood of leaving the organiza-
tion. This more global assessment may be influenced by factors
other than continuance commitment (e.g., justice perceptions).
The hypotheses presented thus far are limited because they
are based on self-report measures. Research by Williams, Cote,
and Buckley (1989) and Bagozzi and Yi (1990) has shown that
attitudinal indices such as those included in our hypotheses
contain a substantial amount of common method variance,
which may serve to inflate the relationships among the various
measures. Feldman and Lynch (1988) argued that measures of
behavioral intentions could likewise be distorted by a respon-
dent's desire to appear consistent. To address these issues, we
included a measure of employee performance (supervisor per-
formance ratings) that was not based on self-report.
Establishing a relationship between procedural justice and
job performance could elevate the importance of procedural
justice in the organizational context from one of curiosity
about psychological processes to one of significance in predict-
ing employee behavior. Likewise, establishing a relationship be-
tween perceptions of outcome fairness as they relate to drug
testing and employee performance should demonstrate the gen-
eralizability of outcome fairness findings to (a) the drug testing
context and (b) inputs and outcomes that are not pay related.
Apart from its theoretical importance, a justice-employee-per-
formance relationship also has considerable practical impor-
tance. Drug testing programs are frequently implemented to
improve organizational effectiveness. Performance decrements
resulting from an unfair testing policy may represent a hidden
cost of drug testing that limits or offsets drug testing's positive
impact on organizational performance.
We predicted a positive relationship between employee per-
formance and perceptions of outcome fairness and procedural
justice. A norm of reciprocity predicts that receiving fair work
outcomes will motivate employees to treat the organization
fairly. Enhanced employee performance is one avenue of recip-
rocation, and equity theorists have demonstrated a positive re-
lationship between outcome fairness and performance (e.g.,
Dubinsky & Levy, 1989; Greenberg, 1982). When subjects per-
 DRUG TESTING FAIRNESS
ceive higher o u t c o m e fairness, they respond with greater pro-
ductivity than do subjects experiencing low outcome fairness.
We therefore predicted a positive association between o u t c o m e
fairness perceptions and employee performance.
The empirical literature on the relationship between proce-
dural justice perceptions and job performance is sparse. Fasolo,
Eisenberger, and Michaelis (1990) proposed that procedural
fairness leads to enhanced job performance. They reasoned
that procedural justice leads to the inference that the organiza-
tion is supportive o f employees. F r o m a social exchange per-
spective, Eisenberger et al. (1990) argued that this support re-
suits in employee reciprocation in the form o f higher job perfor-
mance. There is some evidence to support this proposition.
Taylor, M o g h a d d a m , Gamble, and Zellerer (1987) found that
laboratory subjects who were exposed to procedural unfairness
reported lower intentions to perform. Actual performance, how-
ever, was not measured in this study, and we have already noted
the limitations o f self-reported intentions. Earley and Lind
(1987, Study 1) found that perceptions o f fair procedures were
associated with higher performance on a business simulation
task. A second, field experiment yielded more ambiguous re-
suits, however. In another more recent experimental study,
Lind, Kanfer, and Earley (1990) again found that perceptions o f
procedural fairness caused higher performance. Finally, Fasolo
et al. found that police officers who reported procedural fair-
ness were also higher performers. Taken together, these find-
ings suggest that perceptions o f procedural fairness are likely to
be associated with performance, at least under some condi-
tions.
Method
Subjects
The study's participants were employees of a privately owned pathol-
ogy laboratory located in the south central United States. This organiza-
tion implemented a drug testing program in October 1986. A task force
was convened to develop the drug testing policy and associated proce-
dures, and the company president approved the final policy. The test-
ing policy required preemployment drug screening and drug testing for
cause (both using enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique). The
definition of cause, which includes but is not limited to accidents that
are recordable by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
chronic absenteeism, and drastic changes in performance, was final-
ized over the course of the first several months of the program's exis-
tence. The task force also initially considered using random testing,
but employee objections to this testing method led to its exclusion from
the testing policy. The testing policy also states that all positive drug
tests will be confirmed with a more sensitive test (gas chromatography
mass spectrometry testing). The testing policy has undergone no signif-
icant changes since its first 7 months of existence.
Two hundred and four of the laboratory's 255 employees (80%) volun-
tarily participated in the study during the month of July 1990; 195 fully
completed questionnaires were obtained. The vast majority of ques-
tionnaires (179) were completed on July 9 and 10,1990. On average, the
participants were 30.5 years old, had some technical training or col-
lege, and had worked for the company for 4.3 years. Most of the partici-
pants were White (90%) and female (78%). Performance appraisal rat-
ings were obtained from company records for 138 (54%) of the study's
participants. The performance appraisals were conducted during the
months of June and July 1990. Employees were informed of their ap-
praisal ratings and associated salary ratings at the end of July 1990.
701
Procedures
The data for this study were gathered via a survey and examination
of company records. Participants completed their surveys during work
time. Most of the study's participants (N = 179) reported to the organi-
zation's library, when they had time, to complete the survey. Subjects
were informed that the study would require examination of their pre-
vious performance evaluation ratings. As a result, participants were
asked to provide their names. Individuals were also told that if they did
not approve of this procedure, they could withdraw at any time. Finally,
participants were assured that all findings would be kept completely
confidential and that the organization would see only data summaries.
Twenty-five additional participants at remote locations received their
questionnaires through the mail. These participants were provided
with a postage-paid envelope and returned the questionnaire to the
researcher. There were no significant demographic differences be-
tween employees centrally and remotely located. Performance ap-
praisal ratings were obtained from company records.
Predictor Variables
Two predictor variables, procedural justice and outcome fairness
perceptions, were included in the study. Two procedural aspects of the
drug testing program, fairness of the drug testing process and manage-
rial explanations, were measured.
Drug testing procedures. Two questions were adapted from Tyler
(1989) and used to assess participants' judgments of the fairness of the
drug testing procedures: "The drug testing process at this company is
fair" and "My employer uses fair procedures to conduct the drug tests?'
Participants responded to the items on a 5-point scale ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The internal consistency esti-
mate (Cronbach, 1951) for this measure was .90.
Explanation. A two-item measure of managerial accounts adapted
from Brockner, DeWitt, Grover, and Reed (1990) assessed the degree
to which explanations for drug testing were provided to employees.
The two items were "The company provides a reasonable explanation
for drug testing" and "This company gives adequate reasons for drug-
testing?' Respondents used a scale ranging from stronglydisagree(1) to
strongly agree (5) to respond to the items. The internal consistency
estimate for this measure was .91.
Outcome fairness. The measure of outcome fairness consisted of
two items adapted from Tyler (1989): "The results of the drug tests
conducted by my employer are used fairly" and "People get what they
deserve as a result o four drug testing programY Employees responded
to the items on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). The internal consistency estimate for this scale
was.70.
Criterion Variables
Five criterion variables were included in the study The employee
attitude measures included job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and trust in management. Employee turnover intentions and
job performance were also assessed.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with the global job
satisfaction scale from the revised version of the Job Descriptive Index
(Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989; Smith et al., 1987).
Employees were asked to indicate the degree to which each ofl 8 adjec-
tives described their work. Sample adjectives from the scale include
"fascinating," "routine" and "too much to do:' Respondents used a
7-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to always (7) to respond to the
scale. The scale's internal consistency estimate was .85.
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was
measured with the Affective and Continuance Commitment scales de-
702 MARY A. KONOVSKY AND RUSSELL CROPANZANO
veloped by Allen and Meyer (1990). Each scale contained 8 items.
Affective commitment assesses the emotional commitment an individ-
ual feels toward an organization. Sample items include "I do not feel
like 'part of the family' at this organization" (reverse scored) and "I
enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it" Continuance
commitment assesses the degree to which employees remain with the
organization only because they have no alternative employment oppor-
tunities. Sample items from this scale include "I feel I have too few
options to consider leaving this organization" and "One of the few
negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scar-
city of available alternatives." Participants used a 7-point scale ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) to respond to the items.
The internal consistency estimates were .89 and .85 for the Affective
Commitment and Continuance Commitment scales, respectively.
Trust in management. Trust involves the belief that intentions of
authority are benevolent (Tyler, 1989). Four items based on this concep-
tualization were developed to assess employee trust in management.
Sample items from the scale include "The people who run this com-
pany are very honest" and "This company can be counted on to look
after the well-being of its work-force?' Participants responded to the
items on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (7). The internal consistency estimate for this scale was .86.
Turnover intentions. Three items were used to assess intentions to
quit. The items were adapted from Shore, Newton, and Thornton
(1990) by Cropanzano and James (1990) and measured the likelihood
of an individual quitting his or her job. The items were "How likely is it
that you will look for a job outside of this organization during the next
year?" "How often do you think about quitting your job at this organi-
zation?" and "If it were possible, how much would you like to get a new
job?': Respondents used a 7-point scale to respond to those items. The
items had three different anchors, depending on the question wording.
The first item, for example, was anchored by very unlikely (1) and very
likely (7). Responses were recoded so that higher numbers equalled
decreased turnover intentions. The estimate of internal consistency for
the items was .84.
Participant scale scores for each of the above variables were com-
puted by unit weighting and averaging the scores for all items in each
scale.
Performance. Participants' annual performance appraisal ratings
were used to assess employee performance. The organization's perfor-
mance appraisal system had three components, each rated on a 5-point
scale. These components included (a) an average of ratings on items
describing five general performance areas, (b) a rating of employee
performance relative to job accountabilities, and (c) a rating of em-
ployee performance relative to objective quarterly goals that each em-
ployee-supervisor dyad had formulated and committed to writing (see
Konovsky & Fogel, 1988, for a complete description of the perfor-
mance appraisal system). The ratings for each employee from each of
these three areas were averaged to form an overall performance ap-
praisal rating.
Results
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, reliabilities,
a n d zero-order correlations for the study variables. Coefficient
alphas ranged from a high of .91 (for explanations) to a low o f
.70 (for outcome fairness). All alphas are therefore at or above
the level r e c o m m e n d e d by Nunnally (1978) for use in research.
Table 1 reveals general support for the five hypotheses. Trust
in m a n a g e m e n t was correlated with procedural justice (r =.53,
p < .01) a n d explanations (r = .50, p < .01 ). Contrary to expecta-
tions, trust was also related to outcome fairness (r = .39, p <
.01). Similarly, affective c o m m i t m e n t was significantly corre-
lated with procedures (r = .44, p < .01), explanations (r = .46, p <
.01), and, unexpectedly, outcomes (r = .31, p < .01). As pre-
dicted, continuance c o m m i t m e n t was unrelated to the three
justice variables. Job satisfaction was significantly related to
procedural justice (r = .33, p < .01), explanations (r = .39, p <
.01L and outcome fairness (r = .31, p < .01).
Equally supportive patterns emerged for the nonattitudinal
measures. Turnover intentions correlated .34 with procedures,
.31 with explanations, a n d . 19 with outcomes. All of these asso-
ciations were statistically significant. As expected, job perfor-
mance was significantly correlated with procedural fairness (r---
.28, p < .01) and explanation (r = .23, p < .05). Performance,
however, was not significantly related to outcome fairness.
Many of the dependent variables were also strongly interre-
lated. Management trust and affective c o m m i t m e n t were
highly correlated (r = .68, p < .01), as were affective commit-
ment and job satisfaction (r = .59, p < .01). Job satisfaction was
not related to continuance c o m m i t m e n t (r = - . 0 5 , ns). In fact,
the only significant correlation for continuance c o m m i t m e n t
was a negative correlation with performance (r = - . 2 0 , p < .05).
Affective commitment, on the other hand, was positively re-
lated to performance (r = .28, p < .01). These c o m m i t m e n t
findings closely parallel those o f Meyer, P a u n o n e n , Gellatly,
Goffin, and Jackson (1989). Finally, the correlation between
job satisfaction and performance was. 18, which, although non-
significant, is very close to the average performance-satisfac-
tion correlation found in previous studies (e.g., Brayfield &
Crockett, 1955; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Vroom, 1964).
A m o n g the most highly correlated variables were the justice
measures (ranging from .53 to .71 for uncorrected correlations).
Interestingly, of those relationships, procedural justice a n d out-
come fairness had the lower b o u n d correlation (r = .53, p < .01),
and outcome fairness and explanations had the upper b o u n d
correlation (r = .71, p < .01). These high intercorrelations are
not entirely surprising. They could indicate, for example, that
employees perceived that fair procedures yielded fair outcomes.
Furthermore, as noted earlier, explanations and procedures are
conceptually interdependent (Greenberg, 1990).
Table I also includes, in parentheses, the variable intercorre-
lations corrected for unreliability. Although the absolute value
of the corrected correlations is different from the uncorrected
values, the relative magnitude or pattern o f the corrected inter-
correlations is similar to the uncorrected correlations.
Regression Analyses
Table 2 displays the regression results for each of the study's
hypotheses. We simultaneously regressed procedural justice,
explanations, a n d outcome fairness o n each o f the dependent
measures (see the top o f Table 2). We also conducted usefulness
analyses (Darlington, 1968), which are displayed in the bottom
portion of Table 2. A usefulness analysis examines a predictor's
contribution to unique variance in a criterion beyond the other
predictors' contributions. The high intercorrelations among the
independent variables in our study raised the possibility that
m a n y o f the regression results obtained were affected by the
multicollinearity among the independent variables. A useful-
ness analysis provides one statistical method for illustrating the
effects of one independent variable set over another.
 DRUG TESTING FAIRNESS 703

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Zero-Order Correlations for the Study Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Procedural justice a 4.17 0.90 .90
2. Explanation a 4.07 0.94 .62** .91
(.69)
3. Outcome fairnessa 3.97 0.83 .53** .71"* .70
(.67) (.89)
4. Job satisfactionb 4.60 0.98 .33** .39** .31"* .85
(.38) (.44) (.40)
5. Affectivecommitmentb 4.67 1.50 .44** .46** .31"* .59** .89
(.49) (.51) (.39) (.68)
6. Continuance commitmentb 4.15 1.55 -.09 -.03 -.06 -.05 .09 .85
(-. 10) (-.03) (-.08) (-.06) (.lO)
7. Management trust b 5.23 1.63 .53** .50** .39** .42** .68** .08 .86
(.60) (.56) (.50) (.49) (.78) (.09)
8. Turnover intentionsb 4.29 1.03 .34** .31"* .19"* .49** .47** -.00 .43** .84
(.39) (.35) (.25) (.58) (.54) (.00) (.51)
9. Performance ac 3.78 0.40 .28"* .23** .16 .18 .28** -.20* .10 .06

Note. N = 195. Internal consistency estimates are displayed on the diagonal. Correlations corrected for attenuation are in parentheses below the
uncorrected correlations.
"5-pointscale. b7-pointscale. CN=138.
* p <.05. ** p <.01.

Hypothesis 1 received support. Overall, our fairness mea-
sures predicted management t r u s t ( R 2 : .27), F(3,189) = 12.07,
p < .00 I. The upper portion of Table 2 indicates that manage-
ment trust was related to procedural justice and marginally
related to explanations. Further support for Hypothesis I was
provided by the usefulness analysis, which indicated an absence
of a relationship between management trust and outcome fair-
ness.
A supportive pattern of results was also obtained for Hypothe-
ses 2 and 3. The squared multiple correlation was significant
(R2 = .29), F(3, 190) --- 13.67, p < .001, and indicates that our
justice measures collectively explained a significant share of
affective commitment's variance. As predicted and as the useful-
ness analysis revealed, affective commitment was significantly
related to procedures and explanations but not to outcome fair-
ness. Also as Hypothesis 3 predicted, continuance commitment
was not significantly related to the three justice measures.
Hypothesis 4 received no support: Outcome fairness was not
a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than was procedural
justice. In fact, job satisfaction was unrelated to both proce-
dural justice and outcome fairness. Job satisfaction was pre-
dicted only by explanation. The usefulness analysis revealed
that the effects of explanation and procedural justice on job
satisfaction were above and beyond that of outcome fairness,
which was contrary to our prediction.
The significant squared multiple correlation (. 11), F(3,188) =
3.92, p < .01, for intentions to quit provided overall support for
Hypothesis 5. Although the overall contribution of the justice
variables was significant, no single predictor of turnover inten-
tions was significant. The usefulness analysis revealed, how-
ever, that procedural justice and explanation predicted a larger
and significant portion of the variance than did outcome fair-
ness, which, contrary to our expectation, did not predict a signif-
icant portion of the variance in turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 6 also received some support. Overall, our justice
measures explained a significant amount of the variance in job
performance (R2 = .09), F(3, 104) = 3.41, p < .05. Also as ex-
pected, performance was significantly related to procedural
justice. Contrary to our prediction, however, outcome fairness
and explanation were not significantly related to employee per-
formance.
Demographic Variables
The effects of four demographic variables (age, education,
tenure, and sex) on the dependent variables were also tested.
Demographic variables were significantlyrelated only to contin-
uance commitment and intentions to quit. Education was nega-
tively related to continuance commitment (R2 = .09), F(4,
187) = 3.9, p < .01, and age was positively related to intentions
to quit (R2 = .13), F(4, 180) = 6.59, p < .001. Inclusion of the
demographic variables in the regression equations, however,
did not alter the significance levels for the justice measures.
Discussion
The predicted relationships for justice perceptions were gen-
erally supported for the employee attitudes assessed in this
study. As predicted, justice perceptions significantlyaffected all
employee attitudes except continuance commitment. Further-
more, and as predicted, some forms of justice were more im-
portant than others. Procedural justice, and not outcome fair-
ness, predicted affective commitment and trust in manage-
ment. This pattern of results indicates the importance of
procedural justice in the drug testing context and is consistent
with the belief that procedural justice, but not outcome fair-
ness, is associated with employee loyalty and long-term expec-
tations of fair treatment, which are manifested in employees'
endorsement of their organization and its leaders. We also clari-
fied the justice-commitment relationship by demonstrating ex-
704 MARY A. KONOVSKY AND RUSSELL CROPANZANO

plicitly that procedural justice is related to affective but not

I continuance commitment.
The deviations from the predicted justice-attitude relation-
ships were all related to job satisfaction. Explanation predicted
E~
job satisfaction, whereas we had predicted, on the basis of ear-
lier research and our assumption that job satisfaction was a
context-specific attitude, that outcome fairness would predict
job satisfaction. One explanation for these results may be that
job satisfaction is not a measure that is specific to the drug
I
testing context. Our job-satisfaction measure was a global as-
0
sessment of job satisfaction and did not refer specifically to
0 o g. satisfaction with the organization's drug testing program• Fu-
ture research on the differential ability of procedural justice
and outcome fairness to predict employee responses to drug
testing should, therefore, include outcomes specific to the drug
testing context.
0o~o
The employee behavior results also provided some support
for our hypotheses. We predicted, for example, that all three
justice measures would be related to turnover intentions. We
found that justice predicted turnover intentions overall, al-
t~ 0o ,~
though no single justice indicator significantly predicted these
~.~o. intentions. Our usefulness analysis indicated, however, that the
procedural justice measures were more predictive of turnover
._~ intentions than was the outcome fairness measure. We obtained
r

E similar findings for employee performance. Although we ex-

g pected both procedural-justice and outcome-fairness percep-
tions to be related to employee performance, only procedural
justice predicted employee performance.
One surprising aspect of our results was the overwhelming
e-
0
importance of procedural justice in determining both em-
e-
.E ployee attitudes and behavior. These findings contrast with tra-
• . i•
ditional equity research findings, which emphasize the influ-
ence of outcome fairness on employee attitudes and behavior
(see Greenberg, 1982). Our replication of results such as those of
Lind and Tyler (1988) indicating that procedural justice is espe-
cially important in predicting employee attitudes (such as affec-
rive commitment and trust in management), and our employee
performance results, highlight the importance of further re-
~. ~.. ~. ~ ,.-,
search on procedural justice in all organizational decision-
I
making contexts. We can conclude from these results that jus-
tice, in general, is an important concern for workers who have
undergone drug testing and that procedural justice is a critical
influence on employees" reactions to drug testing.
~g
Our study also demonstrates the utility of using a justice
I
tr~ "t~ framework for understanding employee reactions in the drug
testing context. Most notably, we have demonstrated explicitly
that justice concepts are applicable to the drug testing context.
c-
o Greenberg (1990) noted the need for research of this kind. Fur-
thermore, fairness has now been extended to some dependent
variables only infrequently examined in previous justice re-
.~ . ~ search and research on drug testing. We demonstrated that pro-
cedural fairness is related to turnover intentions and job perfor-
~.~ mance. Previous theoretical work predicted that procedural
fairness would be related to job performance (Cropanzano &
Folger, 1991; Taylor et al., 1987), and some limited empirical
support (Earley & Lind, 1987; Fasolo et al., 1990) did exist. Our
r~
study provides further empirical evidence for a justice-behav-
~ ~'~" V ior link.
Evidence that procedural justice is related to employee perfor-
 DRUG TESTING FAIRNESS
mance improves the prediction and control of employee perfor-
mance and highlights the importance of procedural justice for
understanding employee performance. Our results for proce-
dural justice perceptions and turnover intentions have similar
significance. These findings collectively suggest an underlying
mechanism of social exchange. We did not directly measure the
underlying causal mechanism linking procedural justice and
employee performance and behavioral intentions, however, so
our social-exchange explanation is merely suggestive.
Our results have practical utility because they suggest some
initial guidelines for managers faced with the complexities as-
sociated with managing drug testing programs. Above all, man-
agers should be sensitive to program design issues that affect
justice perceptions. In particular, program characteristics that
affect procedural justice perceptions are especially crucial. Ad-
vanced notice, employee voice, and the right of appeal are only
a few examples of factors that affect procedural justice percep-
tions. One limitation of our study is that we did not identify the
specific components of drug testing programs that influence
fairness perceptions. Further research is therefore necessary to
catalogue the concrete policies and procedures that will foster
justice perceptions. Research identifying those program ele-
ments will be invaluable to management practice.
When the present study's findings are interpreted, issues of
method variance and ambiguity of causal direction must be
considered. Method variance is generally expected to inflate
the correlations among self-report measures. Method variance
is therefore unlikely to account for all of the study's relation-
ships because we found sometimes high and sometimes no rela-
tionships among our predictor and criterion variables, a pattern
difficult to explain by common method variance. Affective
commitment, for example, was predicted and found to corre-
late with procedural justice and explanations. However, as ex-
pected, outcome fairness was unrelated to affective commit-
ment. Similarly, and as expected, continuance commitment
was unrelated to any of the justice measures. Complex patterns
of this type are difficult to explain using only method variance.
Perhaps the best argument against method variance, however,
comes from our performance results. Common method vari-
ance cannot explain the relationship between procedural jus-
tice and performance because performance was not measured
on a self-report scale.
Qualification of our study's findings must also be made re-
garding direction of causality. In discussing the present results,
we have assumed that drug testing procedures and explanations
cause worker attitudes and behaviors. It is, of course, not possi-
ble to establish causal direction with correlational data. Further-
more, there is some ambiguity about the temporal relationship
between the job performance and justice measures. Although
employee performance ratings were announced after adminis-
tration of the questionnaire containing the justice variables, the
performance ratings summarized employee performance over
the course of a year extending from July 1989 through June
1990. Even though individuals had not received their formal
appraisal ratings, they may have anticipated them. Hence, even
the prospect of a high or low evaluation may have caused em-
ployees to rate the organization as fair or unfair, respectively.
One problem with this causal order, however, is that perfor-
mance appraisal research has shown that, after receiving a low
705
evaluation, individuals will not derogate the organization if the
procedures were fair (Landy, Barnes-Farrell, & Cleveland,
1980). Furthermore, although outcome fairness perceptions
can lower ratings of procedural justice (Conlon, Lind, & Lis-
sak, 1989), the effect sizes are quite small (Tyler, 1989). Hence,
although not impossible, it seems unlikely that anticipated per-
formance evaluations could explain our results.
Our assumed causal direction is also consistent with a wide
variety of laboratory experiments and field studies (for reviews
see Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Greenberg, 1990; Lind & Tyler,
1988) demonstrating explicitly that justice determines em-
ployee attitudes. Laboratory experiments by Eadey and Lind
(1987) and Lind et al. (1990), for example, provide strong evi-
dence that procedural justice predicts job performance. Fur-
thermore, some of the drug testing research reviewed earlier
used experimental designs and established that justice deter-
mines employee attitudes and behavioral intentions (Crant &
Bateman, 1990; Stone & Kotch, 1989; Stone & Vine, 1989). This
interplay between the laboratory and the field allows more con-
fidence in our assumption of a specific causal direction. This
should not be interpreted, however, as minimizing the need for
additional research on this issue.
We also must note that the weaker outcome fairness effects
may be partially explained by the low reliability (.70) of our
outcome fairness measure. Low reliability may have attenuated
the relationships between outcome fairness and our criterion
variables. Although Nunally (1978) stated that reliability values
of .70 are acceptable for research purposes, a .70 reliability
value is borderline, and future research should be careful to
create improved outcome fairness measures. Finally, the gener-
alizability of our results cannot be established within the con-
fines of this single study, Our results may have been due to some
unique set of factors not characterizing all companies using
drug testing programs. The drug testing policy in the company
we surveyed, for example, may specify unique testing proce-
dures that are responsible for the study's results. The study's
participants may also constitute a unique population. Again,
further research is necessary to establish the generalizability of
our results to other companies and drug testing programs hav-
ing different characteristics.
Currently the use of drug screening is widely debated (Dwyer,
1989; O'Keefe, 1987). Our data may help provide a partial reso-
lution to some aspects of the controversy. Improper drug test-
ing, meaning drug testing that does not adhere to fair proce-
dures, may lead to increased turnover intentions, lower em-
ployee performance, and low morale. Nevertheless, it seems
that organizations can successfully test for drugs, as long as they
take workers' rights into account. For example, management
should use accurate tests, allow workers to voice their opinions,
and implement the right of appeal (Stevens, Sudes, & Stevens,
1989). The present data indicate that, to the extent this can be
accomplished, some of drug testing's negative effects may be
avoided.
Leaving aside the important issue of procedural fairness,
management still needs to weigh the potential benefits of test-
ing against its costs. There is some evidence that drug screening
can lead to fewer accidents, lower health care costs, and lower
absenteeism (Crouch et at., 1989; Sheridan & Winkler, 1989;
Taggert, 1989). If drug testing is conducted in ways that employ-
706 MARY A. KONOVSKY AND RUSSELL CROPANZANO
ees perceive as procedurally unfair, however, these benefits will
have to be considered against the costs o f lower performance,
higher turnover intentions, and perhaps fewer job applicants.
There is also a nonnegligible cost associated with conducting
drug tests (Greenfield et al., 1989). Finally, if the base rate o f
drug use is low (not an u n c o m m o n occurrence), then even a
valid selection tool can m a k e decisions costly (Murphy, 1987).
Given these considerations, there are likely to be many situa-
tions in which drug testing is simply not an economically viable
alternative. W h e n drug testing is economically feasible, how-
ever, managers will be well advised to i m p l e m e n t a drug testing
program that is procedurally fair. Implementing and conduct-
ing drug tests with employee rights in m i n d may make the
difference between effective and ineffective drug testing pro-
grams.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299).
New York: Academic Press.
Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Com-
ments and an annotated bibliography. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster
(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-
90). New York: Academic Press.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. E (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organiza-
tion. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multi-
trait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and
perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547-560.
Berry, R. E., & Boland, J. E (1977). The economic cost of alcohol abuse.
New York: Free Press.
Bies, R. J. 0987). The predicament of injustice: The management of
moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication
criteria for fairness. In B. H. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation
in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-44). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments:
The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-
218.
Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and
employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396-424.
Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When is it
important to explain why? Factors affecting the relationship between
managers' explanations of a layoff and survivors' reactions to the
layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389-407.
Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors:
An organizational justice perspective. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied
social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 45-75). Hillsdale,
N J: Erlbaum.
Bureau of National Affairs. (1986). Alcohol and drugs in the workplace:
Costs, controls, and controversy Washington, DC: Author.
Conlon, D. E., Lind, E. A., & Lissak, R. I. (1989). Nonlinear and non-
monotonic effects of outcome on procedural and distributive fair-
ness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1085-
1099.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1989). A model of employee responses
to drug-testing programs. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal 2, 173-190.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1990). An experimental test of the
impact of drug-testing programs on potential job applicants' atti-
tudes and intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 127-13 I.
Cronbach, L. J. 095 l). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker
motivation. In R. M. Steers & L. W Porter (Eds.), Motivation and
work behavior (5th ed., pp. 131-143). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cropanzano, R., & James, K. (1990). Dispositional affectivity, work atti-
tudes, and performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Crouch, D. J., Webb, 19. O., Buller, E E, & Rollins, D E. (1989). A critical
evaluation of the Utah Power and Light Company's substance abuse
program: Absenteeism, accidents, and costs. In S. W. Gust & J. M.
Walsb (Eds.), Drugs in the workplace: Research and evaluation data
(Research Monograph 9 l, pp. 169-193). Washington, DC: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological re-
search. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 161-182.
Dubinsky, A. J,, & Levy, M. (1989). Influence of organizational fairness
on work outcomes of retail salespeople. Journal of Retailing, 65,
221-252.
Dwyer, D J. (1989). Don't "just say no" to drug-testing in the work-
place: Some recommendations for developing and implementing pol-
icy. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 275-287.
Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation
in task selection: The roles of control in mediating justice judg-
ments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V.(1990). Perceived orga-
nizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and inno-
vation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Fasolo, P. M., Eisenberger, R., & Michaelis, E. D. (1990). The effects of
distributive and procedural justice on organizational performance.
Unpublished manuscript.
Feldman, J. M,, & Lynch, J. G., Jr. 0988). Self-generated validity and
other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and task
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 410-420.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intention, andbehavior.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive
analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp.
145-164). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distrib-
utive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 32, 115-130.
Freudenheim, M. (1988, December 13). Workers' substance abuse in-
creasing, survey says. New York Times, p. 2.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1987). Dimensions and charac-
teristics of personnel manager perceptions of effective drug-testing
programs. Personnel Psychology, 40, 745-763.
Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in
groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.),
Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389-435). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of perfor-
mance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and to-
morrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
Greenfield, P. A., Karren, R. J., & Giacobbe, J. K. (1989). Drug testing
in the workplace: An overview of legal and philosophical issues.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 2, 1-10.
Gust, S. W, & Walsh, J. M. (I 989). Research on the prevalence, impact,
and treatment of drug abuse in the workplace. In S. W Gust & J. M.
Walsh (Eds.), Drugs in the workplace: Research and evaluation data
 DRUG TESTING FAIRNESS
(Research Monograph 91, pp. 3-13). Washington, DC: National In-
stitute on Drug Abuse.
Guthrie, J. E, & Olian, J. D. (1989, April). Drug and alcohol testing
programs: The influence of organizational context and objectives.
Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Boston.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 2521-
2573.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul,
K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of
global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 74, 193-200.
Karren, R. J. (1989). An analysis of the drug testing decision. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 27-37.
Konovsky, M. A., & Fogel, D. S. (1988, December). Innovation in em-
ployee evaluation and compensation. Personnel Administrator, pp.
92-95.
Lahey, J. W (1986). Whose rights are violated? National Safety and
Health News, 133, 26-31.
Landy, E J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived
fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356,
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K.
Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Ad-
vances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, E C. (1990). Voice, control, and proce-
dural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fair-
ness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
971-980.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural
justice. New York: Plenum Press.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1990, April). Distributive and proce-
dural justice as predictors of outcome satisfaction. Paper presented at
the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial/Organiza-
tional Psychology, Miami, FL.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of
organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J. P., Alien, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continu-
ance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and
analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 710-720.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson,
D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's
the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 74, 152-156.
Murphy, K. R. (1987). Detecting infrequent deception. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 72, 611-614.
Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., & Prue, K. (1991). Influence of job
characteristics on the acceptability of employee drug testing. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 76, 447-453.
Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., & Reynolds, D. H. (1990). College
students' attitudes toward employee drug testing procedures. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 43, 615-631.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Keefe, A. M. (1987, June). The case against drug testing. Psychology
Today, pp. 34-35, 38.
Prestholdt, P. H., Lane, I. M., & Matthews, R. C. (1987). Nurse turnover
as reasoned action: Development of a process model. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 72, 221-227.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
View publication stats
707
Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (in press). Employee assistance and drugs
screening programs. In D. R. Gerstein & J. H. Henrick (Eds.), Treat-
ing drug problems: Vol. 2, Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences Press.
Rush, H., & Brown, J. (1971). The drug problem in business: A survey
of business opinion and experience. The ConferenceBoard Report, 8,
6-15.
Schuster, C. R. 0987). Strategic planning for workplace drug abuse
programs (NIDA Publication ADM-87-1538). Washington, DC:
U. S. Government Printing Office.
Seeber, R. L., & Lehman, M. (1989). The union response to employer-
initiated drug testing programs. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2, 39-48.
Sheridan, J., & Winkler, H. (1989). An evaluation of drug testing in the
workplace. In S. W Gust & J. M. Walsh (Eds.), Drugs in the workplace:
Research and evaluation data (Research Monograph 9 l, pp. 195-
216). Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Shore, L. M., Newton, L. A., & Thornton, G. C. (1990). Job and organi-
zational attitudes in relation to behavioral intentions. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 11, 57-67.
Smith, P. C., Balzer, W., Brannick, M., Chia, W, Eggleston, S., Gibson,
W, Johnson, B., Josephson, H,, Paul, K., Reilley, C., & Whalen, M.
(1987). The revised JDI: A facelift for an old friend. The Industrial
Organizational Psychologist, 24, 31-33.
Steel, R. E, & Ovaile, N. K., II. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of
research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and em-
ployee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673-686.
Stevens, (3. E., Surles, C. D., & Stevens, E W. 0989). A better approach
by management in drug testing. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2, 61-71.
Stone, D. L., & Kotch, D. A. (1989). Individuals' attitudes toward organi-
zational drug testing policies and practices. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 74, 518-521.
Stone, D. L., & Vine, P. L. (1989, April). Someproceduraldeterminants
of attitudes toward drug testing. Paper presented at the Fourth An-
nual Conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psy-
chology, Boston.
Taggert, R. W. (1989). Results of the drug testing program at Southern
Pacific Railroad. In S. W. Gust & J. M. Walsh (Eds.), Drugs in the
workplace: Research and evaluation data (Research Monograph 91,
pp. 97-108). Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Taylor, D. M., Moghaddam, E M., Gamble, I., & Zellerer, E. 0987).
Disadvantaged group responses to perceived inequality: From pas-
sive to acceptance to collective action. Journal of Social Psychology,
127, 259-272.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 0975). Procedural justice.'A psychological
analysis. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Trice, H. M., & Roman, E M. (1972). Spirits and demons at work:
Alcohol and other drugs on the job. Ithaca, N ~ Hoffman Printing.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the
group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57,
830-838.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics. (1989). Sur-
vey of employer anti-drug programs (Report 760). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vroom, V. H. 0964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method
variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or
artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462-468.
Wrich, J. T. (1988, January/February). Beyond testing: Coping with
drugs at work. Harvard Business Review, pp. 120-122, 124, 126-128.
Received October 15, 1990
Revision received March 22, 1991
Accepted M a r c h 26, 1991 •