Business Article Critique II
Shaun Webbs
BusinessEthicsArticle3forCritique.pdf
Reactions to Employer Policies Regarding Prescription Drugs and Medical Marijuana: The Role of Safety Sensitivity
Donald M. Truxillo • David M. Cadiz •
Talya N. Bauer • Berrin Erdogan
Published online: 30 September 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract
Purpose Given the prevalence of drugs in the lives of
many workers, employers often face difficult decisions
about how to reconcile their drug use policies with
employees’ health needs. This is compounded by laws in
17 U.S. states and the District of Columbia that now
legalize medical marijuana and that are in direct conflict
with federal drug-free workplace laws. The purpose of the
present studies was to examine employee attitudes toward
workplace policies regarding prescription drugs and med-
ical marijuana.
Design/Methodology/Approach We conducted two
experimental studies (students with work experience and
nurses) to examine employee attitudes about policies
ranging from a drug-free workplace to accommodation of
prescription drugs and medical marijuana.
Findings The perceived safety sensitivity of jobs mod-
erated the perceived fairness of workplace drug policies.
Employees who perceived their jobs as low in safety sen-
sitivity reported more favorable reactions to policies
allowing prescription drugs than policies allowing medical
marijuana. In contrast, employees in high safety-sensitive
jobs did not differentiate between the two drugs, reacting
equally negatively to policies accommodating either drug.
Nurses rated organizations with drug-free policies as most
attractive.
Originality/Value These are the first studies to examine
employee attitudes toward workplace policies regarding
medical marijuana and prescription drugs, integrating
perceived safety sensitivity as a key moderator to better
understand these attitudes.
Keywords Safety sensitivity � Medical marijuana � Workplace drug policies � Organizational justice
Nearly half of all Americans use at least one prescription
drug at any given time (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention 2004), and the medical and non-medical use of
prescription pain drugs in the United States is increasing at
a significant rate (e.g., Gilson et al. 2004). The potential
implications for the use of pain prescriptions by workers
are significant, especially for safety-sensitive jobs (i.e.,
jobs where impaired performance can result in danger to
oneself, one’s coworkers, or the public Murphy and
Thornton 1992). While prescription pain medication may
allow a worker to continue to work, the medication may
affect the worker’s safety and productivity. 1
However, no
research has examined employee perceptions of the use of
legal prescription drugs at work, an issue which is exam-
ined in the present studies.
Similarly, marijuana is the most commonly used illegal
drug in the U.S. (National Institute on Drug Abuse 2010).
D. M. Truxillo (&) Department of Psychology, Portland State University,
P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
D. M. Cadiz
Oregon Nurses Foundation, Tualatin, OR, USA
T. N. Bauer � B. Erdogan School of Business Administration, Portland State University,
Portland, OR, USA
1 However, it has been shown that users of certain drugs (e.g.,
opioids) may develop a tolerance that causes them little impairment
(Zacny 1996).
123
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
DOI 10.1007/s10869-012-9276-3
In fact, 6.4 % of U.S. employees admit to using marijuana
in the past month (Larson et al. 2007). Marijuana use has
become a complicated issue for employers since the pas-
sage of medical marijuana laws in 17 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia (e.g., Welchand and Leinwand 2010).
Medical marijuana laws currently apply to *83 million Americans (a little more than 25 % of the U.S. population),
and medical marijuana legislation is pending in additional
11 states (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org). With the
recent economic downturn, states such as California and
Massachusetts have considered the legalization and taxa-
tion of marijuana to address budget deficits (McKinley
2009). While most Americans are still against the general
legalization of marijuana, majorities in the U.S. now favor
its legalization for medicinal use (Risling 2010). However,
employee perceptions of medical marijuana at work have
remained unstudied, a gap we aim to fill in the present
studies.
State laws do not require accommodating on-the-job use
of medical marijuana (Haygood et al. 2010). Similarly, the
Americans with Disabilities Act does not require accom-
modation even of all prescription drugs, and there are
recent court cases where firing of employees who used
prescription drugs at work was held to be legal (Bates v.
Dura Automotive Systems 2010). Laws do not provide
guidelines regarding how and whether organizations should
accommodate prescription drugs or medical marijuana, and
organizations have some autonomy in deciding their poli-
cies. Further, there are no studies to help organizations
craft these policies. Although there is an extensive litera-
ture on how potential and current employees feel about
employer policies regarding illicit drugs (e.g., Crant and
Bateman 1993; Cropanzano and Konovsky 1995; Murphy
et al. 1990) and employer drug treatment programs (e.g.,
Paronto et al. 2002), to date no published research has
examined how workers feel about employer policies
accommodating the use of prescription pain medications
and medical marijuana—drugs which may be legal and are
relatively common. This is a significant gap in the
employment literature given that employee reactions to
legal and illegal drug use in the workplace may vary
significantly.
In the current paper, we examine reactions to employer
policies regarding medical marijuana and prescription drugs
in two experimental studies. Grounded in organizational jus-
tice theory, we assessed the perceived fairness of employer
policies regarding medical marijuana and prescription pain
medication (Studies 1 and 2) and the attractiveness of orga-
nizations that use these policies (Study 2). Further, we
examined perceived job safety sensitivity as a moderator of
employee reactions to different types of drug-use policies. Our
experimental studies used a sample of students with work
experience (Study 1) and a sample of nurses (Study 2).
We aim to make three contributions to the literature. First,
these studies are the first to examine employee attitudes
toward policies about the use of legal drugs in the workplace
such as prescription drugs and medical marijuana. Second,
we consider the role of perceived job safety sensitivity in
understanding employee reactions to these policies, as
research has shown that safety sensitivity (e.g., Murphy et al.
1990; Tepper 1994) affects reactions to drug testing policies.
Third, understanding employee perceptions regarding these
policies may provide guidance to employers in creating drug
use policies that are acceptable to employees.
Research on Employee Reactions to Workplace Drug
Issues
Organizational justice theory conceptualizes fairness in
terms of procedures (procedural justice) leading to a
decision, fairness of the outcomes (distributive justice), and
fairness of the interpersonal treatment that occurs during
the implementation of the procedures (interactional justice;
Colquitt et al. 2001; Greenberg 1990; Leventhal 1980; Lind
and Tyler 1988). Of these dimensions, procedural and
distributive justices are particularly salient in the design
phases of organizational processes. For example, organi-
zational justice theory has been used to explain reactions to
selection systems (e.g., Gilliland 1993), performance
evaluations (e.g., Colquitt 2001; Greenberg 1986), orga-
nizational events (e.g., Ambrose et al. 2007), and organi-
zational policies (Greenberg 1994).
Research on reactions to employer drug testing policies
(e.g., Cropanzano and Konovsky 1995) and treatment
programs (e.g., Paronto et al. 2002) has also used a justice
framework. Employer drug testing policies are perceived as
more fair when testing is done for cause (e.g., Arthur and
Doverspike 1997), when it is done on new job applicants
(e.g., Bennett et al. 1994), when fair procedures are used
(e.g., opportunity for appeals; e.g., Cropanzano and
Konovsky 1995), when it is used for safety-sensitive jobs
(e.g., Tepper 1994), and when it is less punitive (i.e., a
positive test leads to rehabilitation rather than termination;
Cropanzano and Konovsky 1995). Reactions to employer
drug treatment policies are also driven by whether the
treatment is voluntary or monitored and by respondents’
past drug use (e.g., Paronto et al. 2002).
However, no research has examined how employees
react to the use of potentially legal drugs like medical
marijuana and prescription drugs. Such research is needed
because employee reactions to drug-free workplace poli-
cies (regarding illegal drugs) may differ from reactions to
policies allowing the use of drugs that are legal but with
potential safety and performance implications. Moreover,
this topic provides a new context for the application of
146 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
organizational justice theory, because the use of both these
drugs (prescription drugs and medical marijuana) may be
legal, but the stigma associated with marijuana may cause
it to be perceived more negatively. In short, we believed
that those who perceive themselves to be in safety-sensitive
jobs would perceive policies allowing either drug as unfair
for their jobs, whereas those in non-safety-sensitive jobs
would see prescription drugs as more acceptable than
marijuana due to the historical stigma associated with
marijuana and marijuana use.
As in previous research on workplace drug policies (e.g.,
Cropanzano and Konovsky 1995; Konovsky and Cro-
panzano 1991; Paronto et al. 2002), we used organizational
justice theory as the key reaction to employer policies
regarding prescription drugs and medical marijuana. Also,
as in past research, we focused on the fairness of the drug
policy to those affected by it, that is, the employees or
applicants to whom it pertains. Workplace drug policies are
at the intersection of legal, ethical, and moral perspectives
which may drive an individual’s evaluations of justice or
fairness. Thus, organizational justice theory appropriately
captures the key elements involved in reactions to issues
such as workplace drug policy and safety sensitivity. In
Study 1 (currently or previously employed students) and
Study 2 (nurses), participants were assigned to experi-
mental conditions (e.g., an employer who allows medical
marijuana).
Study 1: Student Sample
Hypotheses
According to the ethicality rule of organizational justice
(Leventhal 1980), procedures should be compatible with
fundamental moral and ethical values. An employment policy
allowing medical marijuana will be perceived as less fair than
one allowing prescription drugs, because marijuana for non-
medical uses is illegal in the U.S., and because of the social
stigma associated with marijuana in the U.S. for generations.
Indeed, much of the clinical substance abuse literature has
used the stigma concept to understand reactions to users of
illegal drugs. For example, stigma has been used to explain
nurses’ reactions to substance abusers (e.g., Skinner et al.
2007). Further, because many employer safety programs
include a substance abuse prevention component, they suggest
to employees that there is a link between illicit drug use and
safety. Because of the ethicality rule of justice, the illegality of
marijuana under most circumstances, and the resulting stigma
associated with its use (Hathaway 2004) even when it is used
for medical reasons, we predict that policies accommodating
legal use of marijuana would be perceived as less fair than the
use of prescription drugs.
Hypothesis 1 Employer policies which sanction the use
of medical marijuana will be perceived as less fair than
those which sanction the use of prescription drugs.
Job safety sensitivity, the perceived danger that
impaired performance on the job can have on oneself,
one’s coworkers, or the public (e.g., Murphy et al. 1991;
Tepper 1994), is a primary determinant of how people
perceive employer drug testing (e.g., Cropanzano and
Konovsky 1995; Murphy et al. 1991; Tepper 1994). For
example, Tepper (1994) found that job safety sensitivity
was related to the perceived fairness of drug testing, and
Paronto et al. (2002) found that people who believed their
jobs to be more safety-sensitive perceived drug treatment
to be more fair. Perceived safety sensitivity as a moderator
of reactions to drug policies makes sense from an organi-
zational justice perspective, as sobriety is particularly job
related for safety-sensitive jobs. Gilliland (1993) cites job
relatedness as a key facet of the procedural fairness of
selection systems. Murphy et al. (1991) found that the
danger associated with the job (i.e., job safety sensitivity)
was related to the acceptability of drug testing. Tepper
(1994) also found that perceived safety sensitivity can
serve as a form of justification for the use of organizational
drug testing (cf. Bies and Shapiro 1988).
Thus, we considered the perceived safety sensitivity of the
job when examining reactions to organizational drug policies
regarding prescription drugs and medical marijuana. Based
on previous research, we posited that perceived safety sen-
sitivity would moderate the perceived fairness of different
employer policies (one allowing prescription drugs versus
one allowing medical marijuana). Specifically, employees in
low safety-sensitive jobs, where impairment could lead to
less serious consequences, will react more negatively to the
use of medical marijuana at work than to the use of pre-
scription pain medication because of the stigma associated
with marijuana use (Hathaway 2004). In contrast, employees
in safety-sensitive jobs should perceive policies allowing the
use of any drug that might impair performance as equally less
fair, because abstaining from such drugs would be a job-
related requirement in safety-sensitive jobs and impairment
from any drug would be unacceptable. In short, employees in
safety-sensitive jobs will perceive policies allowing medical
marijuana or prescription drugs to be unfair. In contrast,
those in non-safety-sensitive jobs will focus less on the
negative outcomes and more on the stigma associated with
marijuana, even when used for medical reasons. Therefore,
we expected that perceived safety sensitivity would moder-
ate reactions to policies allowing prescription pain drugs
versus medical marijuana.
Hypothesis 2 Perceived safety sensitivity will moderate
the fairness of employer drug policies. Employees in low
safety-sensitive jobs will perceive policies allowing
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158 147
123
medical marijuana to be less fair than policies allowing
prescription drugs, whereas employees in high safety-
sensitive jobs will perceive policies allowing the use of
either drug as less fair.
Study 1: Method
Participants
Participants were 78 non-traditional (mean age 26.33,
SD = 6.09) undergraduate students enrolled in five psy-
chology and business courses from an urban state univer-
sity in the Western U.S. based on enrollments in these
classes, the response rate was *60 %. Eighty-one percent of the sample was currently working, and 25 % worked
full-time. All respondents indicated that they had at least
some work experience. Respondents had worked in a wide
range of jobs. Using EEOC job classifications, the most
common jobs held were Service Worker (22 %), Office/
Clerical (18 %), Sales (12 %), and Professional (10 %).
The sample was 72 % female. With regard to ethnicity, the
sample was 77 % Caucasian, 6.4 % Hispanic, 5.1 % Asian/
Pacific Islander, 3.8 % Native American, 2.6 % Black,
1.3 % Filipino, and 2.6 % classified themselves as ‘‘other.’’
Their average education was 14.9 years.
Design and Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two condi-
tions (via collation of the two surveys), specifically, an
employment scenario with an employer that allowed pre-
scription pain medication or one that allowed medical
marijuana. Participants were first asked to provide infor-
mation about their current job, or their most recent job if
they were currently unemployed. Next, participants were
asked to read a scenario about a coworker using either
medical marijuana or prescription pain medication. Then,
keeping in mind their current or most recent job, partici-
pants were asked to indicate their thoughts about an
employer who would allow this type of drug use in the
workplace. Specifically, the instructions were: ‘‘For each
statement indicate the response that best represents your
opinion about this scenario for your current or most recent
job.’’ The next section of the survey assessed participants’
personal drug use history, and was followed by demo-
graphic questions. The survey concluded with a manipu-
lation check question regarding which drug was used in the
scenario; 90 % of respondents answered correctly, and
dropping those who did not had any effect on the results of
the hypothesis tests.
Participants received extra credit for their participation.
Due to the sensitive nature of the questions, extra steps
were taken to maintain the confidentiality of the
participants. For example, the class instructor left the room
before data collection began, and participants were asked
to return their survey responses to the research assistants in
unmarked, sealed envelopes.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, variables were measured on a
5-point scale ranging between 1 = strongly disagree and
5 = strongly agree.
Perceived Safety Sensitivity
We used three items based on Tepper’s (1994) one-item
measure. Participants were asked how integral safety was
to their job, how impaired performance would impact
themselves and others, and whether or not following safety
procedures could create a dangerous work environment. A
sample item from this scale is, ‘‘Impaired performance in
my job could create a danger or a safety hazard for me, my
co-workers, or the public.’’ Responses to the measure were
made on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was
.89.
Perceived Fairness
Fairness perceptions regarding the employer policy were
measured with a three-item scale based on Cropanzano and
Konovsky’s (1995) and Konovsky and Cropanzano’s
(1991) fairness measure. The items were adapted to assess
how a participant would feel about an employer that
allowed the use of a particular type of drug (i.e., pre-
scription pain medication, medical marijuana) at work. In
keeping with past research (e.g., Cropanzano and Konov-
sky 1995), we used items geared toward both procedural
and distributive justice. Such an approach is also consistent
with recent findings regarding overall justice and the utility
of overall justice for predicting a range of outcomes
(Ambrose and Schminke 2009). A sample item is
‘‘Allowing an employee to use [type of drug] in a situation
like this is fair.’’ (a = .95).
Control Variables
We used past drug use history as a control variable because
drug use has been found to be important in understanding
reactions to employer drug policies (e.g., Murphy et al. 1990;
Paronto et al. 2002). Past marijuana use was measured with
one item based on that used by Paronto et al. (2002).
Responses to the questions were on a 5-point scale ranging
from ‘‘I have never used’’ to ‘‘I have used it in the past
7 days.’’ For this study, drug history was operationalized as a
148 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
dichotomous variable (0 = no prior use of marijuana,
1 = past use of marijuana), because past research has found
differences between those who have never used marijuana
compared with those who have used it at some time (Truxillo
et al. 2001). We also used sex as a control in our analyses
because men and women tend to differ in their reactions to
drug testing (e.g., Truxillo et al. 2001) and because of the
higher level of drug use and on-the-job impairment reported
among male employees (Frone 2006, 2008).
Study 1: Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
the study variables are presented in Table 1. At the cor-
relational level, perceived fairness was negatively but not
significantly related to the drug policy (r = -.16, ns) and
to safety sensitivity (r = -.22, ns). There was a positive
relationship between sex and fairness of the drug policies,
(r = .34, p \ .01), with women rating both policies more fair than men did, perhaps indicating a greater caring ori-
entation (Jaffee and Hyde 2000) to accommodate a cow-
orker who has pain.
Hypothesis Tests
We used hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses. We
created a dummy variable for the independent variable
(i.e., whether the policy allowed prescription drugs or
medical marijuana). To reduce any potential multicolline-
arity we centered safety sensitivity by standardizing it
(Aiken and West 1991). We conducted a hierarchical
regression analysis with perceived fairness as the depen-
dent variable. We entered the control variables (sex and
drug use history) in Step 1 (e.g., Paronto et al. 2002); the
main effects of safety sensitivity and drug policy in Step 2;
and the interaction term for the safety sensitivity 9 drug-
type interaction in Step 3. The results of this regression
equation are shown in Table 2.
The final regression equation was significant (R2 = .24,
F (5, 70) = 4.46, p \ .01). Hypothesis 1, the main effect of drug type on perceived fairness, was not supported, (b = -.14, ns). However, the change in R2 with the addition of
the interaction term was significant (DR2 = .07, DF (1, 70) = 6.28, p \ .01), indicating that there was an inter- action between safety sensitivity and drug policy (b = .40, p \ .05). To examine its nature, we plotted the interaction at one standard deviation above and below the mean
(Fig. 1). People in low safety-sensitive jobs perceived a
policy allowing prescription pain medication as fairer than
one allowing medical marijuana. In contrast, those in high
safety-sensitive jobs perceived the two policies as equally
less fair. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Study 1: Discussion
In Study 1, we examined whether the type of drug allowed by
an employer affected the perceived fairness of the policy, and
whether perceived safety sensitivity of the respondent’s job
moderated this effect. We found an interaction between
safety sensitivity and drug policy. Specifically, participants
who were in low safety-sensitive jobs perceived a policy
allowing prescription drugs as more fair than one allowing
medical marijuana, which is in alignment with the ethicality
justice rule (Leventhal 1980) and the public’s stigma toward
the use of marijuana (Hathaway 2004) because of its asso-
ciation with illegal drug use. In contrast, those in safety-
sensitive jobs perceived the two policies as equally (and
relatively less) fair, perhaps because any impairment could
be dangerous in a safety-sensitive job, in alignment with the
job relatedness (e.g., Gilliland 1993) and justification (e.g.,
Bies and Shapiro 1988) approaches to organizational justice.
Study 2: Nurse Sample
One strength of Study 1 is that it used respondents from a
naturally occurring range of jobs with correspondingly
Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among Study 1 variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Sex 0.72 0.45 –
2. Drug history 0.69 0.47 -0.11 –
3. Safety sensitivity 3.72 1.20 -0.15 0.03 (0.89)
4. Drug policy 0.50 0.50 -0.06 -0.17 -0.15 –
5. Perceived fairness 3.68 1.13 0.34** 0.10 -0.22 -0.16 (0.95)
Notes: N = 76–78. Values on the diagonal in parentheses represent the Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for these variables. Sex is coded 0 for males and 1 for females. Drug history is coded 0 = no use, 1 = previous use. Drug policy is coded 0 = prescription pain medication,
1 = medical marijuana
* p \ .05 ** p \ .01
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158 149
123
differing degrees of safety sensitivity. But because drug
policies are most relevant to safety-sensitive jobs (National
Institute on Drug Abuse 1989), we chose to study a sample
of nurses in Study 2, a critical, safety-sensitive job. This is
especially important given the shortage of nurses (Buer-
haus et al. 2000) and the access members of this profession
have to prescription drugs. Nurses’ perceptions of medical
marijuana were also of particular interest to the nurses
association partnering with us in Study 2, which operates in
a state that has allowed medical marijuana use for several
years. Because this nursing sample was older and had
greater age variance, we hoped to increase the generaliz-
ability of our findings to the broader population.
In Study 2, we further refined the types of policies
examined in three ways. First, we examined reactions to a
drug-free workplace policy, as this is perhaps the most
common employer policy, especially for safety sensitive
jobs. Second, instead of looking at a policy that only
allowed medical marijuana, we examined reactions to a
policy allowing prescription drugs and medical marijuana
together, because both of these drugs are frequently used
for pain management, and most employers allowing med-
ical marijuana would also allow prescription drugs. In
addition, although past research has examined the fairness
of employer drug policies, it has also examined the orga-
nizational attractiveness of employers with these policies
(e.g., Paronto et al. 2002). Organizational attractiveness has
been shown to relate to the fairness of employer drug
policies in past studies (Paronto et al. 2002). Moreover,
organizational attractiveness is an outcome of great
importance to employers, particularly those who might be
considering the implementation of new drug policies
among safety sensitive workers.
Hypotheses
From a procedural justice perspective, nurses may be more
aware than the general public of the potential effects of drugs
on performance. Therefore, the use of drugs has a particular
job-relatedness and relevance to the nursing profession
(Trinkoff et al. 2000), because allowing someone to be
impaired while at work would not be perceived as procedur-
ally fair as it would put both coworkers and patients at risk. In
addition, from a distributive justice perspective (Folger and
Konovsky 1989), if a coworker is allowed to use drugs,
impairment could lead to decreased performance, thereby
placing greater pressure on unimpaired coworkers, resulting
in feelings of inequity with regard to the distribution of work.
Table 2 Hierarchical regression results testing the moderating effects of safety sensitivity on the relation between type of drug sanctioned in the organizational drug policy and fairness perceptions, Study 1
Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b
Sex 0.82 .31 .33** 0.73 .27 .30** 0.87 .27 .36**
Drug history 0.40 .26 .17 0.35 .26 .15 0.33 .25 .14
Drug policy -0.30 .24 -.14 -0.31 .23 -.14
Safety sensitivity (SS) -.22 .12 -.20 -0.54 .17 -.50**
Drug policy 9 SS 0.59 .23 .40*
DR2 0.12* 0.05 0.07*
DF 5.12* 2.18 6.28*
Overall F 5.12** 3.73** 4.46**
R2 for final equation 0.24*
Notes: N = 75. Sex is coded 0 = males and 1 = females. Drug history is coded 0 = no use and 1 = previous use. Drug policy is coded 0 = prescription pain medication and 1 = medical marijuana
SS safety sensitivity
* p \ .05 ** p \ .01
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Pain Prescription Medical Marijuana
P er
ce iv
ed F
ai rn
es s
Type of Drug Policy X Safety Sensitivity Interaction
Low Safety Sensitivity (-1 SD below the mean)
High Safety Sensitivity (+1 SD above the mean)
Fig. 1 Type of drug policy (medical marijuana vs. prescription drug) by safety sensitivity interaction on perceived fairness, Study 1
150 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
Besides examining policies allowing prescription drugs
and medical marijuana, in Study 2 we also examined
reactions to a drug-free policy. We thus expanded our
original Hypothesis 1. Specifically, we hypothesized that a
drug-free policy would be perceived as more fair than a
policy allowing prescription drugs, or one allowing pre-
scription drugs and medical marijuana, particularly in a
safety-sensitive job such as nursing. Specifically, because
nursing is a safety-sensitive job, a policy that does not
allow any drug use should be perceived as most fair
because it would be most job-related (Paronto et al. 2002),
and any drug use perceived as a violation of the job-
relatedness (Gilliland 1993) and justification (Bies and
Shapiro 1988) justice rules.
Hypothesis 3a Among nurses, a drug-free workplace
policy will be perceived as more fair than one allowing
either prescription drugs or one allowing drugs and medical
marijuana.
Hypothesis 3b Among nurses, an employer with a drug-
free workplace policy will be perceived as more attractive
than one allowing either prescription drugs or one allowing
drugs and medical marijuana.
Although nursing is considered as a safety-sensitive job,
there are still varying levels of safety sensitivity across
nursing jobs. For example, critical care nurses are in more
safety-sensitive jobs than nurse administrators or execu-
tives who are far removed from direct patient care. Further,
different nurses within the same job type may perceive
their jobs as differentially safety sensitive. Thus, while all
nurses should prefer a drug-free policy, we expected that
nurses who perceived themselves to be in higher safety-
sensitive positions would perceive any drug use in the
workplace, either prescription drugs or medical marijuana,
as being less fair because any impairment on the job would
have greater negative consequences. In contrast, we
expected that nurses who perceived themselves to be in
lower safety-sensitive positions to align with respondents
in other low safety-sensitive jobs who perceived policies
regarding medical marijuana as less fair than policies
allowing prescription pain medications.
Hypothesis 4a Perceived safety sensitivity will moderate
the relationship between employer drug policy and fairness
perceptions. Nurses who perceive their jobs to be more
safety-sensitive will perceive policies allowing prescription
drugs and those allowing prescription drugs/medical mar-
ijuana as equally and relatively less fair compared to drug-
free policies. Nurses who perceive their jobs as lower in
safety-sensitivity will perceive a policy allowing prescrip-
tion drugs as more fair than one allowing prescription
drugs/medical marijuana, while the drug-free policy will be
perceived as most fair.
Hypothesis 4b Perceived safety sensitivity will moderate
the relationship between employer drug policy and orga-
nizational attractiveness. Nurses who perceive their jobs to
be more safety-sensitive will perceive organizations
allowing prescription drugs and those allowing prescription
drugs/medical marijuana as equally and relatively less
attractive than organizations with drug-free policies. Nur-
ses who perceive their jobs as lower in safety-sensitivity
will perceive organizations allowing prescription drugs as
more attractive than ones allowing prescription drugs/
medical marijuana, while the drug-free policy will be
perceived as the most attractive.
Study 2: Method
Participants
Surveys were distributed to 172 nurses at a multi-day,
annual, state-wide nursing conference put on by a nurses
association in a Western U.S. state. This state has had a
medical marijuana law in place for several years, and Study
2 was supported by the state nurses association which was
concerned about attitudes towards medical marijuana
among its members. We received 129 responses, resulting
in a response rate of 75 %. The mean age of the partici-
pants was 52.2 years (SD = 9.68), and 92 % were female,
which generally reflects the demographics of nurses in this
state. The average years of work experience was
26.2 years. The ethnic makeup of the sample was 93 %
Caucasian, 2.4 % Hispanic, 2.4 % African American, and
the remainder of ethnicities combined was less than 3 % of
the sample. Ninety-five percent of the sample was currently
working, and 51 % were working full-time (36 or more
hours worked per week). Eighty-five percent of the sample
indicated that they worked in a hospital setting, and 72 %
indicated that their specialty was one that was associated
with the day-to-day dispensing of drugs. The majority
(52 %) classified themselves as ‘‘Critical Care, NICU’’ and
‘‘General Medical, Medical Surgical, General Surgical’’,
categories that would be safety sensitive. Eighty-six per-
cent of the participants indicated that they held the position
of staff nurse, and the remaining participants were in
higher-level or unspecified positions.
Design and Procedure
In Study 2, we examined three drug policy scenarios: drug-
free workplace policy, prescription pain medication
allowed, and prescription pain medication/medical mari-
juana allowed. As in Study 1, participants were first asked
about their work experience. Then they were presented
with one of the three workplace drug policies and were
asked to rate the perceived fairness of the policy as well as
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158 151
123
the attractiveness of an organization that has this policy.
Similar to Study 1, random assignment to conditions was
via collation of the 3 surveys. Further, in Study 2, the
nurses were specifically asked to evaluate the policy within
the context of ‘‘a job like yours.’’ We did this so that when
considering the fairness of the policy, participants’ would
be considering their own job and the safety sensitivity they
associated with it. The final section of the survey assessed
personal drug history and demographics.
Note that in Study 1, it was important to examine reactions
to medical marijuana and prescription pain medication sep-
arately to see if there were differences in perceptions of
policies allowing medical marijuana versus prescription pain
medication, and in fact there were. In Study 2, however, we
used a combined medical marijuana and prescription pain
medication condition because in discussions with experts on
employer drug policies we could not envision an employer
policy that would allow medical marijuana, but not allow
prescription pain medication, as both types of drugs are used
in pain management, but the prescription pain drugs are legal
by prescription under U.S. federal law. Therefore, in Study 2,
we compared three levels of employer drug use policy: Drug-
free workplace policy, a policy that allows prescribed pain
medication, and a policy that allows both prescribed pain
medication and medical marijuana. To eliminate confusion
as to what is meant by ‘‘drug free,’’ we provided this defi-
nition: ‘‘Some employers have a drug-free policy at work,
such that employees are not allowed to use either prescrip-
tion pain medication(s) or medical marijuana for certain
jobs. Although the details of these programs differ from each
other, give your general opinion about this sort of policy,
thinking specifically about a job like yours.’’ (emphasis in
original).
Measures
The perceived fairness (a = .96) items were parallel to those in Study 1. As described in Study 1, this scale utilized
both procedural and distributive justice items combined
into a single scale of overall justice, as would be suggested
by Ambrose and Schminke (2009). The drug use history
item was the same as that used in Study 1.
Perceived Safety Sensitivity
We adjusted the wording of the three-item measure used in
Study 1 to make the items more relevant to nursing. We
also added three items with regard to appropriate staffing
and patient handling which resulted in a total of six items
to assess safety sensitivity. A sample item was, ‘‘Impaired
performance in my job could create a danger or a safety
hazard for me, my co-workers, patients, or the public.’’
(a = .94).
Organizational Attractiveness
We assessed organizational attractiveness of employers using
these drug policies with four items (e.g., Paronto et al. 2002;
Truxillo et al. 2001). A sample item is, ‘‘All other things being
equal, I would prefer to work for an organization that had this
policy for a job like mine.’’ (a = .95). There was a high correlation between perceived fairness
and organizational attractiveness (r = .87, p \ .01), a finding that is similar to previous research on reactions to
workplace drug policies (Paronto et al. 2002). However,
because this correlation suggests that these two variables
may be redundant, we conducted a CFA examining whe-
ther a 2-factor model fits the data significantly better than a
one-factor model. There was a significant difference in
Chi-squared between the 1-factor and 2-factor models (Dv2
(1) = 48.70, p \ .01, N = 127) indicating that the two- factor model fit the data significantly better than the one-
factor model. Thus, we treated organizational justice and
organizational attractiveness as two separate variables.
Study 2: Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
the Study 2 variables are presented in Table 3. We created
two dummy variables for the three-level policy variable,
using the drug-free workplace policy as the comparison or
base category. The two dummy variables were labeled
‘‘prescription’’ and ‘‘prescription and medical marijuana.’’
To create the prescription dummy variable, we recoded this
condition as one and the other two conditions as zero. We
then created the prescription and medical marijuana
dummy variable by recoding this condition as one and
recoding the other conditions as zero. As seen in Table 3,
there is a significant negative correlation between the
prescription medication and medical marijuana dummy
variable and perceived fairness (r = -.24 p \ .01). This relationship indicates that the most inclusive drug policy,
which condoned the use of prescription pain medication
and medical marijuana, is perceived as less fair than the
other two policies combined. Similarly, there was a nega-
tive correlation between the prescription medication and
medical marijuana variable and organizational attractive-
ness (r = -.22, p \ .05), suggesting that organizations allowing prescription drugs and medical marijuana were
perceived as less attractive than organizations with the
other two policies.
We used hierarchical regression to test Hypotheses 3a
and 4a, the effects of employer drug policy and safety
sensitivity on perceived fairness. Once again, we stan-
dardized safety sensitivity to center it (Aiken and West
1991). With perceived fairness as the dependent variable,
we entered sex and drug use history as the control variables
152 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
in Step 1; the main effects of safety sensitivity and the two
dummy coded drug policy variables in Step 2; and the
interaction terms for the safety sensitivity by drug policy in
Step 3. The results of this regression are shown in Table 4.
The overall equation was significant (R 2
= .26, F (7,
105) = 5.17, p \ .01). Hypothesis 3a, the main effect of drug type on perceived fairness, was supported in that the
drug-free workplace policy was perceived to be more fair
than a policy allowing prescription drugs and a policy
allowing prescription drugs and medical marijuana
(bs = -.36 and -.51, p \ .01). However, these main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between
safety sensitivity and drug policy (DR2 = .05, DF (2, 105) = 3.59, p \ .05). This interaction is shown graphi- cally in Fig. 2. Examination of the betas for the interaction
term for each dummy variable indicates that while the two
groups were ordered similarly for the drug-free workplace
and prescription drug/medical marijuana conditions
(b = .05, ns), the two groups were ordered differently for the drug-free workplace and prescription drug conditions
(b = -.25, p \ .05). As shown in Fig. 2, nurses in high safety-sensitive jobs perceived the prescription drug policy
to be about as fair as the prescription drug/medical mari-
juana policy, whereas those in low-safety-sensitive jobs
Table 3 Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among Study 2 variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Sex 0.92 0.27 –
2. Drug history 0.58 0.49 -.08 –
3. Safety sensitivity 3.86 0.69 -.07 -.08 (.86)
4. Prescription 0.38 0.49 -.07 .08 .02 –
5. Prescription and MM 0.29 0.46 .06 -.04 .08 -.50** –
6. Perceived fairness 2.79 1.30 -.03 .11 .01 -.14 -.24** (.95)
7. Org attractiveness 2.72 1.21 -.02 .14 .05 -.09 -.22* .87** (.95)
Notes: N = 115–129. Values on the diagonal in parentheses represent the Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for these variables. Sex is coded 0 = males and 1 = females. Drug history is coded 0 = no use and 1 = previous use. Prescription = dummy variable for drug policy allowing
prescription pain medication. Prescription and MM = dummy variable for drug policy allowing prescription pain medication and medical
marijuana. Org Attractiveness organizational attractiveness
* p \ .05 ** p \ .01
Table 4 Hierarchical regression results testing the moderating effects of safety sensitivity on the relation between type of drug sanctioned in the organizational drug policy and fairness perceptions, Study 2
Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b
Sex -0.16 0.44 -.03 -0.13 0.40 -.03 0.13 0.41 .03
Drug history 0.27 0.25 .10 0.28 0.23 .11 0.30 0.23 .11
Prescription -0.99 0.27 -.37** -0.97 -0.36 -.36**
Prescription and MM -1.43 0.29 -.49** -1.49 0.29 -.51**
Safety sensitivity 0.08 0.12 .06 0.24 0.21 .18
Prescription 9 SS -0.62 0.31 -.25*
Prescription and MM 9 SS 0.12 0.28 .05
DR2 .01 .19** .05*
DF 0.70 8.67** 3.59*
Overall F 0.70 5.54** 5.17**
R2 for final equation .26**
Notes: N = 112. Sex is coded 0 = males and 1 = females. Drug history is coded 0 = no use and 1 = previous use. Prescription = dummy variable for drug policy allowing prescription pain medication. Pain prescription and MM = dummy variable for drug policy allowing pre-
scription pain medication and medical marijuana
SS safety sensitivity
* p \ .05 ** p \ .01
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158 153
123
perceived the prescription drug policy as fairer than the
prescription drug/medical marijuana policy. Therefore,
Hypothesis 4a was supported.
To test Hypotheses 3b and 4b, the effects of drug policy
and safety sensitivity on organizational attractiveness, we
created a regression equation in a similar way with orga-
nizational attractiveness as the dependent variable. The
results of this regression are shown in Table 5. The overall
regression equation was significant (R2 = .19, F (7,
105) = 3.48, p \ .01). Hypothesis 3b, the main effect of drug type on organizational attractiveness, was supported
in that an organization with a drug-free policy was per-
ceived to be more attractive than a policy allowing pre-
scription drugs and medical marijuana (b = -.43, p \ .01) and a policy allowing only prescription pain drugs (b = -.29, p \ .01). The final step in the regression analysis did not result in a significant change in R
2 (DR2 = .04, DF (2,
105) = 2.58, ns), suggesting that the interaction was not
significant; thus we did not find support for the moderating
effect of safety sensitivity on organizational attractiveness
(Hypothesis 4b).
Study 2: Discussion
The results in the nurse sample in Study 2 are similar to
those of the students in Study 1. Specifically, nurses who
regard their jobs as low in safety-sensitivity reacted more
negatively to policies allowing medical marijuana than to
those allowing prescription drugs. In contrast, nurses who
perceived themselves to be in highly safety-sensitive jobs
reacted to policies allowing either prescription drugs or
medical marijuana equally negatively. These results are not
surprising because since the federal drug-free workplace
was initiated by Executive Order 12564 in 1986 followed
by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (National Insti-
tute on Drug Abuse 1989), a drug free workplace was
established as the norm for safety-sensitive jobs.
The results for organizational attractiveness were a bit
different. Perceptions of organizational attractiveness were
higher for drug-free policies than for policies allowing drug
use, and perceived safety sensitivity did not moderate these
effects. Thus, safety sensitivity of the job did not affect
nurses’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness.
Rather, whether they perceived their jobs as safety sensi-
tive or not, nurses were more attracted to organizations
with drug-free workplace policies than to organizations
allowing either type of drug, perhaps because of their focus
Fig. 2 Type of drug policy (drug free vs. medical marijuana vs. prescription drug and medical marijuana) by safety sensitivity
interaction on perceived fairness, Study 2 (Nurses)
Table 5 Hierarchical regression results testing the moderating effects of safety sensitivity on the relation between type of drug sanctioned in the organizational drug policy and organizational attractiveness, Study 2
Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b
Sex -0.07 0.41 -.02 -0.20 0.39 -.01 0.19 0.40 .04
Drug history 0.28 0.24 .11 0.30 0.22 .12 0.31 0.22 .13
Prescription -0.75 0.26 -.30** -0.73 0.26 -.29**
Prescription and MM -1.11 0.28 -.41** -1.16 0.28 -.43**
Safety sensitivity 0.14 0.12 .11 0.24 0.21 .19
Prescription 9 SS -0.49 0.30 -.21
Prescription and MM 9 SS 0.13 0.28 .06
DR2 .01 .14** .04
DF 0.76 5.65** 2.58
Overall F 0.76 3.73** 3.48**
R2 for final equation .19**
Notes: N = 112. Sex is coded 0 = males and 1 = females. Drug history is coded 0 = no use and 1 = previous use. Prescription = dummy variable for drug policy allowing prescription pain medication. Prescription and MM = dummy variable for drug policy allowing prescription
pain medication and medical marijuana
SS safety sensitivity
* p \ .05 ** p \ .01
154 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
on fitness to practice which is in their code of ethics and
training.
General Discussion
Organizations in many U.S. states need guidance regarding
whether and how to incorporate state medical marijuana
laws into their drug use policies. Understanding employee
reactions to workplace drug policies is critical for organi-
zations designing policies that comply with legal regula-
tions but that are acceptable to employees. To date, past
research has focused on employee reactions to organiza-
tional policies regarding illegal drugs (Cropanzano and
Konovsky 1995; Paronto et al. 2002; Tepper 1994). While
informative, these studies do not directly speak to the issue
of how employees would respond to organizational policies
about prescription and legal drugs. The present studies are
the first to focus on prescription pain medication or medical
marijuana, potentially legal drugs which may cause job
impairment. Using organizational justice as our theoretical
framework, we also examined perceived job safety sensi-
tivity (e.g., Tepper 1994) as a moderator of reactions to
these policies.
With regard to perceived fairness, the findings across
our two samples were consistent. Specifically, those in less
safety-sensitive jobs reacted more positively to policies
that allowed prescription drugs than to those that allowed
medical marijuana. However, those in the most safety-
sensitive jobs, that is, those whose jobs would be most
affected by drug use, reacted equally negatively to a policy
allowing prescription drugs and one allowing medical
marijuana. With regard to organizational attractiveness,
however, we found no moderating effects for safety sen-
sitivity: nurses were more attracted to organizations that
had a drug-free policy than to those that allowed pre-
scription drugs or medical marijuana.
Implications for Research
The literature on reactions to employer policies about illicit
drugs has largely focused on the fairness of employer
policies (e.g., Konovsky and Cropanzano 1991; Paronto
et al. 2002). Specifically, the greater the perceived safety
sensitivity of the job involved, the more likely respondents
are to rate employer drug policies as fair (Murphy et al.
1991). Paronto et al. (2002) specifically linked the impor-
tance of job safety sensitivity with the job-relatedness of
employer drug policies. In other words, the greater the
relevance of drug testing and treatment to the job, the more
likely respondents will be to accept employer drug policies,
even policies with more punitive outcomes (Cropanzano
and Konovsky 1995). This aligns with the job-relatedness
(e.g., Gilliland 1993) and justification (e.g., Bies and
Shapiro 1988) justice rules.
The present studies expands this application of organi-
zational justice theory in four important ways. First, while
past studies in the I-O/OB literature have focused on the
perceived fairness of workplace policies regarding illicit
drugs, the present studies examine reactions to policies
about drugs that are potentially legal, specifically, medical
marijuana and prescription pain medication. Second, these
studies further demonstrate the key role of perceived safety
sensitivity in explaining the perceived fairness of employer
policies regarding the use of these types of drugs. Third, we
use the organizational justice concepts of justification (e.g.,
Bies and Shapiro 1988) and ethicality (e.g., Leventhal
1980) to explain fairness reactions to workplace policies
about these drugs, confirming the usefulness of the orga-
nizational justice approach for explaining and predicting
reactions to workplace drug policies. Finally, these studies
show the multiple sources of justice judgments: Those in
safety-sensitive jobs perceived policies allowing these two
drugs similarly, perhaps because the effects of any drugs
were job-related, while those in non-safety-sensitive jobs
may have focused on the relative stigma associated with
each drug.
Implications for Practice
Many U.S. states have passed laws allowing medical
marijuana, and the use of prescription drugs is on the rise.
As such, employer policies will need to respond to the
increased use of these drugs. Employers are provided sig-
nificant autonomy regarding whether medical marijuana
use on the job should be accommodated (Haygood et al.
2010). Although medical marijuana laws vary by state,
employers may want to consider accommodating users of
medical marijuana in the same way that they would
accommodate workers who legally use prescription drugs,
for example, as long as the drug use does not interfere with
the performance of essential job duties and the employee is
not in a safety sensitive job. Accommodation might also
include reassigning employees or allowing them only to do
certain job tasks.
The present study can aid in the development of more
informed employer and government policies regarding the
use of prescription drugs and medical marijuana. First,
these results suggest that for people who perceive them-
selves to be in safety-sensitive jobs, an organization with a
drug-free policy was perceived to be fairer than one with
policies allowing any sort of drug use. Further, among
nurses, the organization with the drug-free policy was
considered to be most attractive. This finding is particularly
relevant since the nurse workforce is facing dramatic
shortages, and attracting and retaining nurses is pertinent to
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158 155
123
meet increasing demands on the health care system
(Buerhaus et al. 2006).
Most important, health care organizations must also
weigh how the potential for employee impairment could
negatively affect quality care. At the same time, organi-
zations should try to accommodate employees who need
legal medication to manage pain; perhaps they can be
accommodated by putting them into less safety-sensitive
jobs, if available. Such complex factors need to be taken
into account when developing drug policies in safety-
sensitive jobs.
Moreover, policies allowing prescription drugs and
those allowing medical marijuana seem equally inappro-
priate to employees in safety-sensitive jobs. However,
these results present a bit of a paradox regarding non
safety-sensitive jobs: Employees in these jobs reacted more
positively to allowing prescription medications than to
allowing medical marijuana, perhaps because of the stigma
associated with marijuana use in general. Thus, what is key
is to determine whether a job in question is safety-sensi-
tive, and whether the use of pain medications and pre-
scription drugs would actually lead to impairment which
would affect performance.
As our results suggest that stigma may be attached to
policies accommodating medical marijuana use, at least
among those who do not hold safety sensitive jobs, orga-
nizations considering incorporating medical marijuana into
their existing prescription drug policies may want to con-
sider potential negative reactions of their employees. It
may be useful to provide explanations for why medical
marijuana will be accommodated, as research has shown
that explanations for organizational policies can have a
substantial effect on employee attitudes (Shaw et al. 2003),
although this issue needs additional research. Further,
employees should be informed about differences among
jobs regarding which ones would allow for the accommo-
dation of medical marijuana and prescription drugs.
Potential Limitations
These studies are not without their potential limitations.
Study 1 employed a sample of college students. However,
the sample was older than most student samples with a
mean age of 26, and respondents were either employed or
had work experience. Study 1 participants had also worked
across a wide range of jobs. Moreover, the results for this
sample paralleled those found in our older sample of
employed nurses. Second, our studies gathered information
at only one point in time. However, we used an experi-
mental design with participants randomly assigned to
conditions which allowed us to be more confident in our
findings. Moreover, we controlled for variables such as
drug use history and sex which past research has shown to
be important for explaining drug attitudes. Third, we used
the term ‘‘drug-free policy’’ in the nurse sample, providing
them with a definition of it. However, the use of a between
subjects design may have complicated this issue because
respondents were not privy to the information in the other
conditions. Future research should tease apart this issue by
operationalizing the term ‘‘drug-free policy’’ for respon-
dents. Finally, in Study 1, participants were not necessarily
considering the policy in the context of their own job, but
more generally for jobs in their organization. However, this
issue was addressed in Study 2, because the nurses were
specifically asked to evaluate the policy within the context
of their own jobs and the safety sensitivity they associated
with it. Future research should confirm that the safety
sensitivity of the respondent’s job has effects on reactions
to drug policies developed for all employees in the
organization.
Future Research
As the first studies on perceptions of legal drug use at work,
these studies suggest several avenues for future research.
First, some research (e.g., Cropanzano and Konovsky
1995) has examined how the consequences (e.g., rehabili-
tation, termination) of a drug test coming back as positive
for drug use affect reactions to drug testing policies. Future
research should examine a more detailed policy which
would include the consequences of drug use, such as
moving a worker using legal drugs into another, less safety-
sensitive job. Second, research should examine reactions to
coworkers using drugs legally at work. In particular, the
stigma associated with drugs such as marijuana (cf.,
Hathaway 2004) may affect perceptions of coworkers using
them. Further, future research should directly examine the
relative stigma associated with medical marijuana (for
example, because of its perceived availability to people
without a medical condition) versus prescription drugs. We
also suggest that future research examine the conditions
under which a particular drug is used. For example, drug
use by coworkers may be more accepted where there is an
explanation for such use (cf., Shaw et al. 2003) or when the
coworker is known and has performed their job well in the
past. Relatedly, it may be possible to provide explanations
for why an employer might allow the use of medical
marijuana to reduce concerns among employees in low
safety-sensitive jobs. These issues should be examined in
the context of other safety-sensitive jobs (e.g., truck driv-
ers). We also recommend that researchers measure the role
of ethicality and justifications in reactions to employer drug
policies, especially policies regarding the use of legal
drugs. Although we examined perceived safety sensitivity,
which is consistent with past studies on reactions to
employer drug policies, future research may also examine
156 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
the role of safety sensitivity determined by objective means
(e.g., via O*NET) and how it might affect workers’ per-
ceptions of drug use. Finally, an issue not addressed in the
I/O literature is the complex interrelationship of the
legality, stigma, and safety issues associated with a range
substances such as alcohol (a legal drug), prescription
drugs used legally, illegal use of prescription drugs, med-
ical marijuana, and illegal drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin). For
instance, even legal drugs used off-site and many hours
prior to work may be of interest to employers because of
potential effects on work performance (e.g., alcohol use the
night before work and hangover), and future studies should
examine this as well (cf., Frone and Trinidad 2012).
Conclusion
This paper presents the first studies to examine reactions to
employer policies regarding prescription drugs and medical
marijuana. We found that those who perceived themselves
to be in low safety sensitive jobs perceived policies
allowing prescription drugs were perceived as more fair
than those allowing medical marijuana. However, those in
safety sensitive jobs perceived policies allowing either
drug equally negatively, and perceived a drug-free policy
to be best. We also found that nurses were more attracted to
organizations with drug-free policies than to organizations
allowing prescription drugs or medical marijuana. As such,
these findings provide guidance for the development of
workplace drug policies.
Acknowledgments We thank Sue Davidson and Chris O’Neil of the Oregon Nurses Association for their help with this project. We thank
Elizabeth McCune for her helpful comments. Earlier versions of the
two studies in the paper were presented at the 2008 SIOP Conference
in San Francisco.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ambrose, M., Hess, R. L., & Ganesan, S. (2007). The relationship
between justice and attitudes: An examination of justice effects
on event and system-related attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 21–36.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice
judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 494–500. Arthur, W., Jr, & Doverspike, D. (1997). Employment-related drug
testing: Idiosyncratic characteristics and issues. Public Person- nel Management, 26, 77–87.
Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, (625F.3d284 [2010]).
Bennett, N., Blum, T. C., & Roman, P. M. (1994). Employee attitudes
toward drug testing: Effects of individual characteristics and
employment setting. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 117–128.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their
influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 31, 676–685.
Buerhaus, P. I., Donelan, K., Ulrich, B. T., Norman, L., & Dittus, R.
(2006). State of the registered nurse workforce in the United
States. Nursing Economics, 24, 6–12. Buerhaus, P., Staiger, D., & Auerbach, D. (2000). Implications of an
aging registered nurse workforce. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2948–2954.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Annual report on the
nation’s health. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://www.cdc.
gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/hus04.htm.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice:
A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y.
(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of
25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1993). Potential job applicant
reactions to employee drug testing: The effect of program
characteristics and individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 279–289.
Cropanzano, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1995). Resolving the justice
dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug
screening. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 221–243. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and
distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.
Frone, M. R. (2006). Prevalence and distribution of illicit drug use in
the workforce and in the workplace: Findings and implications
from a U.S. National Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 856–869.
Frone, M. R. (2008). Are work stressors related to employee
substance use? The importance of temporal context in assess-
ments of alcohol and illicit drug use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 199–206.
Frone, M. R., & Trinidad, J. R. (2012). Relation of supervisor social
control to employee substance use: Considering the dimensionality
of social control, temporal context of substance use, and substance
legality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 303–310. Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems:
An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 694–734.
Gilson, A. M., Ryan, K. M., Joranson, D. E., & Dahl, J. L. (2004). A
reassessment of trends in the medical use and abuse of opioid
analgesics and implications for diversion control: 1997–2002.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 28, 176–188. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of perfor-
mance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432. Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote
acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288–297.
Hathaway, A. D. (2004). Cannabis users’ informal rules for managing
stigma and risk. Deviant Behavior, 25, 559–577. Haygood, R., Hensley, R., & Field, K. (2010). It’s going to be a long,
strange trip: What employers need to know about medical
marijuana laws. Employment Relations Today, 37, 65–75. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral
orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of
employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158 157
123
Larson, S. L., Eyerman, J., Foster, M. S., & Gfroerer, J. C. (2007).
Worker substance use and workplace policies and programs
(DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4273, Analytic Series A-29).
Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In
K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
McKinley, J. (2009, April 20). Marijuana advocates point to signs of
change. The New York Times, p. A13. Medical marijuana. (2012). Retrieved May 24, 2012, from http://
medicalmarijuana.procon.org/.
Murphy, K. R., & Thornton, G. C., I. I. I. (1992). Characteristics of
employee drug testing policies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 295–309.
Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., I. I. I., & Prue, K. (1991). Influence
of job characteristics on the acceptability of employee drug
testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 447–453. Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., I. I. I., & Reynolds, D. H. (1990).
College students’ attitudes toward employee drug testing
programs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 615–631. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1989). Model plan for a comprehensive
drug-free workplace program. Retrieved from http://www.work
place.samhsa.gov/FedPgms/Pages/ModelPlan508.pdf.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2010). DrugFacts: marijuana.
Retrieved May 23, 2012, from http://www.drugabuse.gov/
publications/drugfacts/marijuana.
Paronto, M. E., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Leo, M. C. (2002).
Drug testing, drug treatment, and marijuana use: A fairness
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1159–1166. Risling, G. (2010, April 20). Most in U.S. against legalizing pot. Associated
Press. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ap/us_ap_poll_legalizing_marijuana.
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?:
A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458.
Skinner, N., Feather, N. T., Freeman, T., & Roche, A. (2007). Stigma
and discrimination in health care provision to drug users: The
role of values, affect, and deservingness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 163–186.
Tepper, B. (1994). Investigation of general and program-specific
attitudes toward corporate drug-testing policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 392–401.
Trinkoff, A. M., Zhou, Q., Storr, C. L., & Soeken, K. L. (2000).
Workplace access, negative proscriptions, job strain, and
substance use in registered nurses. Nursing Research, 49, 83–90. Truxillo, D. M., Normandy, J. L., & Bauer, T. N. (2001). Drug use
history, drug test consequences, and the perceived fairness of
organizational drug testing programs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 87–99.
Welchand, W. M., & Leinwand, D. (2010, February 26). Slowly,
states are lessening limits on marijuana. USA Today. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/
2010-03-08-marijuana_N.htm.
Zacny, J. P. (1996). Should people taking opioids for medical reasons
be allowed to work and drive? Addiction, 91, 1581–1584.
158 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:145–158
123
Copyright of Journal of Business & Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
