Business Law paper

Smoking as a Job Killer: Reactions to Smokers in Personnel Selection

Nicolas Roulin1 • Namita Bhatnagar1

Received: 29 July 2015 / Accepted: 21 February 2016 / Published online: 27 February 2016

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract Decades of tobacco control initiatives have

turned public opinion against cigarette smoking. Smokers,

once considered glamorous, are now stigmatized in

domains including the workplace. Extant literature lacks

scrutiny of smoker stigmatization and devaluation within

the job selection process, and mechanisms that lead to such

outcomes. Using an experimental design, we empirically

examine initial reactions to job applicants’ smoking

behaviors within two samples (N = 122 Canadian business

students, and N = 143 online U.S. respondents with hiring

experience). We show that initial impressions are signifi-

cantly worse when job applicants smoke versus do not in a

store-based context. Moreover, this effect occurs indirectly

through perceived likelihood of engaging in counterpro-

ductive work behaviors (and to some extent negative

emotions experienced), and is conditional upon respon-

dents’ own attitudes towards smoking (particularly within

the U.S. sample). These relationships—similar for cus-

tomer service and inventory management jobs—are

indicative of potential biases within the hiring process.

Implications of these findings, and the moral dilemmas

they raise around the treatment of smokers, are discussed

from the ethical perspective of human resource

management.

Keywords Counterproductive work behaviors � First impressions � Human resource management � Selection � Smoking � Stigmatization

Cigarette smoking that was once seen as glamorous is

now widely stigmatized (Bayer and Stuber 2006). The

stigma runs so deep that even an awareness that someone

smokes can trigger negative impressions about him or her

across a slew of unrelated characteristics (e.g., Seiter

et al. 2010). In fact, the relationship between non-smokers

and smokers today is best characterized as adversarial in

nature, and has resulted in a discriminatory dynamic that

also plays out in the workplace (Gilbert et al. 1998;

Morrow and Leedle 2002). The social devaluation of

smoking can be attributed to factors such as knowledge of

the harmful health effects for smokers and (very impor-

tantly) innocent bystanders, the healthcare burden borne

by society, stringent public policy measures that create

physical separation by restricting smokers to designated

areas that are visible yet at a distance from the majority

population, and stigmatization tactics adopted by tobacco

de-marketers as counterpoints to powerful positive ima-

gery sold by tobacco companies (Bayer and Stuber 2006;

Gilbert et al. 1998). The health risks of smoking are

undeniable and the social denigration of smokers is

credited with lowered smoking rates (Kim and Shanahan

2003). At the same time, literature on stigmatization

reports on the physical and psychological stresses from

being stigmatized (Weiner et al. 1988), and even the

potential for intensified engagement in stigmatized

behaviors (Steele and Aronson 1995). And, others (Bayer

and Stuber 2006; McCool et al. 2013; Stuber et al. 2008)

have begun questioning the ethics of looking down upon

smokers given the magnitude of adverse consequences

(e.g., the lack of adequate healthcare and research asso-

ciated with smoking related illnesses, and reduced access

to resources and opportunities in interpersonal and pro-

fessional domains) that must be borne, for better or worse,

by people who smoke.

& Nicolas Roulin [email protected]

1 Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Drake

Center, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V4, Canada

123

J Bus Ethics (2018) 149:959–972

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3101-2

In the workplace, more and more organizations have

shied away from hiring smokers based on perceptions of

higher healthcare costs, greater absenteeism, and lost pro-

ductivity (Houle and Siegel 2009), and those who at first

glance unjustly characterize smokers as less qualified on

job-related attributes can further exacerbate the situation.

According to the normative stakeholder approach to human

resource management, to ‘‘pass the ethics test’’ organiza-

tions have a moral responsibility towards all their stake-

holders, despite these stakeholders having potentially

conflicting interests (Greenwood 2002, 2013). For instance,

organizations and managers have the moral obligation to

treat all their employees with respect, equality, and fairness

(Greenwood 2002), to ensure their well-being (Guest and

Woodrow 2012), to ensure non-discriminatory practices

(Demuijnck 2009), and to consider the consequences of

their actions (Legge 1998). However, ethical obligations

(where at its most fundamental level, employees are treated

as human beings and not mere commodities or resources to

be managed; Greenwood 2013) can sometimes conflict

with strategic objectives (Van Buren et al. 2011). In the

specific context of personnel selection, organizations and

applicants too can have conflicting interests (Bangerter

et al. 2012), yet organizations still bear the responsibility

for providing a fair and just process to all job applicants

(Arvey and Renz 1992; Gilliland 1993). Unfortunately,

organizations often fail at adopting this ethical perspective

of human resource management. For instance, taking a

descriptive ethics perspective (Jack et al. 2012), there is

evidence from numerous empirical studies that stigmatiz-

ing features of job applicants such as race (Brief et al.

2000), age (Finkelstein et al. 1995), or obesity (Roehling

2002) often trigger unethical treatment and biases in how

they are judged.

The present study follows this research tradition, and

examines the treatment of an applicant feature previously

unexamined within the personnel selection domain, i.e.,

that of smoking status. How smokers are treated has been at

the center of numerous debates within the social sciences

(Stuber et al. 2008), psychology (Gilbert 1995), law and

labor relations (e.g., Chadwick 2006; Pugsley 1993; War-

ner 1994), as well as business ethics (Lecker 2009) litera-

tures. For instance, Lecker (2009) builds on Locke, Kant,

and Nozick’s philosophies of individual rights and free-

dom, and asserts that from an ethical standpoint, companies

have no right over the behaviors of their employees,

especially if these behaviors have no reputational or pro-

ductivity consequences for the firm. Indeed, while in no

way condoning tobacco use, it is also true that there is a

lack of empirical evidence to support the assertion that

smokers make for less qualified employees (Morrow and

Leedle 2002).

This mischaracterization of smokers has the potential to

unfairly impact a large number of applicants. Notwith-

standing declining smoking rates within the general adult

population, most recent statistics indicate that in 2014 fully

16.8 % of the adult U.S. population smoked (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, CDC 2016), and in 2013

14.6 % of Canadians over the age of 15 were self-identified

as smokers (Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey,

CTADS 2013). This implies the presence of a non-negli-

gible proportion of smokers within job applicant pools that

reside at the very entrance into organizations, and warrants

examinations by human resource management researchers

that are interested in the ethical implications of practices

that can significantly impact people’s lives. Some organi-

zational smoker-related policies (Houle and Siegel 2009),

and laws in the U.S. designed to protect smokers from

discrimination (Schmidt et al. 2013) have also been insti-

tuted. This issue, however, remains largely overlooked in

the human resource management and industrial/organiza-

tional psychology literatures. In fact, we are not aware of a

single study within the area of personnel selection that

investigates whether or not smokers are stigmatized and

discriminated against. This paper, thus, examines the

consequences of being considered a smoker at the very

point of admittance into the workforce (i.e., the selection

process) by building on stigmatization theory, and drawing

from literatures on tobacco control and personnel selection.

Overall, we are the first to empirically examine anti-

smoker biases within the personnel selection literature.

Using an experimental design with (non-representative)

samples of business students and online respondents with

hiring experience, we highlight the impact of applicants’

smoking status on respondents’ initial impressions of them.

Initial impressions have practical significance in employ-

ment interviews as they often trigger biased confirmatory

processes (Dougherty et al. 1994) and impact final hiring

decisions (Stewart et al. 2008). Also importantly, we build

upon the dual-process model of reactions to stigmas (Pryor

et al. 2004) to identify mediating mechanisms (i.e., emo-

tional responses and inferences about applicants’ likely

behaviors) and moderating variables (i.e., attitudes towards

smoking and job type) that may influence such decisions.

Findings of ‘smokerism’ biases (Gilbert et al. 1998; Lecker

2009) in employment decisions have practical significance

for organizations (in terms of fulfilling their moral obli-

gation of non-discrimination, and the loss of potentially

qualified candidates), applicants (in terms of heightened

awareness of the need for smoking cessation, or barring

this, impression management), and legislators (in terms of

adding to the push to designate smoking as a prohibited

ground for hiring discrimination, on par for instance with

alcohol addiction).

960 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

Hiring Smokers: Legislation, Practices, and (the Lack of) Research

Numerous studies in personnel selection have highlighted

stigmatization, biases, and employment discrimination

based on a multitude of factors including: race, ethnicity, and

immigrant or minority status (Brief et al. 2000; Derous and

Ryan 2012; Petersen and Krings 2009), gender (Cohen and

Bunker 1975; Glick et al. 1988; Ng and Wiesner 2007), age

(Finkelstein et al. 1995; Krings et al. 2011), sexual prefer-

ence (Hebl et al. 2002), attractiveness (Tews et al. 2009), or

obesity (King et al. 2014; Roehling 2002). Non-discrimina-

tion has been described as a moral obligation for organiza-

tions (Demuijnck 2009). Moreover, most of the factors

described above are now prohibited grounds for hiring dis-

crimination in many countries, including the U.S. (the Civil

Rights Act), Canada (the Human Rights Act), and the

European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights).

Disabilities for which applicants are legally protected also

include present or previous addiction to alcohol (as long as an

employee’s job performance is not directly impacted).

Theoretically speaking, smoking is an addiction to nicotine

and should also be thought of as a disability (Pugsley 1993).

Yet, nicotine addiction remains excluded from the Ameri-

cans with Disabilities Act and the Canadian Human Rights

Act, and cigarette smoking is not a prohibited reason for

discrimination within national-level legislations (Chadwick

2006; Pugsley 1993). In the U.S., 29 states have recently

passed legislation prohibiting employers from refusing to

hire applicants because of their smoking habits. The

remaining 21 states, however, have no such restrictions

placed upon them (Schmidt et al. 2013). In Canada, judges

and arbitrators have consistently ruled that smoking is not a

disability and have not punished discriminatory practices.

In sharp contrast to legislations evolving to protect

smokers, historical and anecdotal evidence suggests that

some employers deliberately choose not to hire smokers. In

earlier times, Henry Ford and Thomas A. Edison refused to

hire anyone that smoked on or off the job (Tate 1999). More

recently, a number of organizations have switched from

enforcing smoke-free workplaces to developing smoker-free

policies that restrict hiring smokers (Houle and Siegel 2009;

Lecker 2009). For instance, not-for-profit organizations

(such as the World Health Organization, and a number of

hospitals), as well as for-profit companies (such as

Momentous Corp. in Canada, and Weyco Inc. and Union

Pacific Railroads in the U.S.) have stopped hiring smokers.

There are even reports of organizations with smoker-free

policies that have terminated employees who lied about their

smoking status during the hiring process (Gray 2005).

Even organizations that lack such policies show evi-

dence of the devaluation of smokers. For instance, smokers

tend to receive lower subjective performance evaluations as

compared to non-smokers, especially in the areas of pro-

fessionalism, interpersonal working relations, and

dependability (Gilbert et al. 1998), although exceptions

exist (see for instance Morrow and Leedle 2002). Yet, the

actual relationship between smoking habits and objective

measures of job performance remains under-researched.

While smokers tend to select riskier jobs than do non-

smokers, they receive lower hazard pay (Viscusi and

Hersch 2001). In general, smokers receive wages reduced

by an average of 4–8 % as compared to comparable non-

smokers, even after controlling for education level and

other socio-economic variables (Levine et al. 1997).

The main argument for bans on hiring smokers (at least

in the U.S.) pertains to higher costs borne by employers

(estimated at $4000 per smoker per annum), with smokers

perceived as being more expensive in terms of health

insurance claims (Schmidt et al. 2013; Stuber et al. 2008).

Smokers are also expected to be more absent and less

productive (e.g., Greenberg 1994; Leigh 1986) despite a

scarcity of supporting empirical evidence (Morrow and

Leedle 2002). Other arguments include corporate aspira-

tions such as physically fit employees or extremely sani-

tized workspaces free of tobacco odors (Malouff et al.

1993). These organizational practices have been embraced

by tobacco control proponents (e.g., the National Cancer

Institute) as another way to dissuade cigarette use (Houle

and Siegel 2009). At the same time, critics of these policies

consider them as unethical (Lecker 2009; Schmidt et al.

2013) given the non-job-related leisure time nature of

smoking (Chadwick 2006), and the potential for stigmati-

zation to cause unemployment, stress, and other personal

problems (Houle and Siegel 2009). Very importantly, such

stigmatization may also translate into indirect forms of

discrimination against minorities where higher rates of

tobacco use are generally observed (i.e., within less privi-

leged, less educated, and unemployed populations; Garrett

et al. 2011; Schmidt et al. 2013).

Stigmatization of Smokers in the Selection Process

We propose to examine reactions to smokers in the hiring

process in alignment with stigmatization theory. Goffman

(1963) conceptualized a stigma as being a link between an

attribute (such as, smoking cigarettes in the present

research context) and stereotypes about an individual (such

as, undesirable characteristics associated with smokers).

Stigmas have been further de-constructed by Link and

Phelan (2001) into labeling (e.g., as ‘smokers’), stereo-

typing (e.g., association of smokers with a variety of neg-

ative attributes), separation (e.g., between the ‘non-

Smoking as a job killer: Reactions to smokers in personnel selection 961

123

smoker’ majority and ‘smoker’ minority), status loss (e.g.,

the social devaluation of smokers by non-smokers), and

discrimination (e.g., the erosion of opportunities for

smokers). Stigmatized individuals are thus likely to face

negative stereotypes and discrimination, such as in the

form of lower access to valued resources (Link and Phelan

2001).

Stigmatization of risky behaviors is often used in public

health campaigns as a means to lessen the behaviors’

attractiveness. Anti-smoking marketing campaigns have

reframed smokers as socially unappealing misfits that harm

not just themselves but also blameless bystanders (Bayer

and Stuber 2006). As a result, the societal stigmatization of

smokers is credited with significant drops in smoking rates

(Bayer and Stuber 2006). At the same time, the harmful

effects of stigmatization on the physical and psychological

outcomes of those that are targeted (Weiner et al. 1988)

and the risk of worsening the very behaviors being deni-

grated (Steele and Aronson 1995) have long been cau-

tioned against. Evidence for the stigmatization faced by

smokers and its outcomes has begun to accumulate. For

instance, people that smoke are viewed as social outcasts

(Alesci et al. 2003; Kim and Shanahan 2003) that are less

attractive, likeable, clean, and healthy in comparison to

those that do not smoke (Seiter et al. 2010). Smoking is

perceived as a signal of self-destructiveness, poor logical

reasoning, and being low on the socio-economic spectrum

(Bayer and Stuber 2006; McCool et al. 2013).

Stigmas also allow for a better understanding of the

situation faced by smokers in the selection process. It is

likely that perceptions that drive the treatment of smokers

in organizations will reflect broader social perceptions

surrounding this demographic. In other words, the negative

sentiments against smokers are likely to carry over into the

workplace and hiring process. And, research on the impact

of stigmas on hiring decisions has highlighted that stig-

matized applicants are evaluated more negatively than non-

stigmatized ones (e.g., Hebl et al. 2002; Madera and Hebl

2012). The effect of smoking status is likely to be espe-

cially strong when one has to form an initial impression

about the applicant. Job applicants identified as smokers,

thus, are expected to be initially evaluated more negatively

as compared to non-smokers.

Hypothesis 1 Initial impressions of an applicant descri-

bed as a smoker will be more negative than for a non-

smoker.

The impact of applicant smoking status on initial

impressions about applicants can, potentially, be indirect.

According to the dual-process model of reactions to stig-

mas (Derous et al. in press; Pryor et al. 1999, 2004),

individuals respond to stigmas in two ways: First, they

engage in reflexive processes which are mostly based on

instinctive (or automatic) emotional reactions. A stigma

may thus trigger fear, disgust, and avoidance as impulsive

or automatic responses developed through learning. Sec-

ond, individuals engage in rule-based processes which

involve more controlled and thoughtful reactions. Indi-

viduals may thus reflect on the appropriateness of their

initial emotional reactions and engage in more deliberated

attributions about the stigmatized person. Such processes

are likely to be particularly negative when the stigma is

perceived to be controllable (e.g., smoking status) as

compared to uncontrollable (e.g., a facial stigma; Pryor

et al. 1999).

In line with the reflexive process, one immediate reac-

tion to applicants who smoke may be negative emotional

reactions (e.g., becoming angry, upset, disgusted, annoyed,

and distressed) that are triggered on being confronted with

them. Indeed, smoking has been associated with negative

reactions such as disgust (Rozin and Singh 1999), and

tobacco control strategies have included graphic health

warnings on cigarette packages to create negative emotions

(e.g., fear, disgust) in order to encourage smoking cessation

(Leshner et al. 2009). In the same way, we expect appli-

cants who smoke to trigger more negative emotional

reactions, which would then indirectly result in more

negative initial impressions of applicants.

Hypothesis 2 Negative emotions will act as a mediator in

the relationship between applicant smoking status and

initial impressions of the applicant.

In line with the rule-based process, one may engage in

attributions about the kind of employee the stigmatized

applicant is likely to be. We suggest that people may infer

that smokers are more likely to engage in deviant or

counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) than non-

smokers. CWB are defined as voluntary behaviors that

violate important organizational norms (or rules and poli-

cies) that thereby threaten the well-being of an organiza-

tion, its members, or both (Robinson and Bennett 1995).

They involve ‘‘mild’’ behaviors that affect organizational

productivity such as withholding effort, working slowly,

and absenteeism, and more damaging behaviors like theft,

fraud, harassment, and sabotage. CWB have a strong

negative relationship with positive (or citizenship) work-

place behaviors and task performance (Sackett 2002).

Public health advocates and non-smoker advocacy

groups have encouraged the framing of tobacco con-

sumption as an anti-social and objectionable act (Ameri-

cans for Non-smokers’ Rights 2006). As a consequence,

the act of smoking is frequently associated with deviance

or non-conformity (Markle and Troyer 1979). Gilbert

(1995) investigated smokers’ personalities and noted that

individuals ‘‘that do not adhere to traditional social values

are more likely to smoke than others’’ (Gilbert et al. 1998,

962 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

p. 286). The failure to stop smoking has been linked with a

lack of self-control (Muraven and Baumeister 2000), and

employees’ lack of self-control has been identified as a

strong predictor of counterproductive work behaviors

(Marcus and Schuler 2004; Spector 2011). Altogether, one

may be concerned that smokers tend to engage in more

CWB than non-smokers. We therefore predict that indi-

viduals presented with information suggesting that appli-

cants smoke will perceive them as more likely to engage in

CWB and, indirectly, evaluate them less favorably.

Hypothesis 3 Perceived likelihood of CWB will act as a

mediator in the relationship between applicant smoking

status and initial impressions of the applicant.

Stable Attitudes and Situational Factors as Moderators of Reactions to Smokers

The dual-process model of reactions to stigma (Pryor et al.

2004) also suggests that stable attitudes towards the stig-

matized group can influence reactions, and especially

reflexive processes. For instance, reactions towards indi-

viduals with HIV/AIDS were stronger for respondents with

negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Pryor et al. 2004).

Similarly, research on racial discrimination during the

selection process highlights the important role of evalua-

tors’ level of racial prejudice in their evaluations of

minority versus majority applicants (Brief et al. 2000;

Mullins 1982). As such, stable attitudes towards the act of

smoking in general could influence the assessments that

one makes of smokers as potential employees. Stigmati-

zation of applicants that smoke, and the negative reactions

and perceptions associated with it, are thus likely to be

stronger when one has negative (vs. positive) attitudes

towards smoking. These attitudes can be driven by factors

such as ones’ own smoking behaviors, those of their loved

ones, or others they feel a sense of affinity for. Such a

prediction is also consistent with other theoretical approa-

ches related to stigmas and stereotyping. For instance,

social identity theory (Tajfel 1979; Turner 1991) suggests

that preference is generally given to the in-group (i.e.,

groups we already belong to or wish we belonged to) over

an out-group (i.e., groups we do not belong to nor wish we

were members of) in the form of greater liking or better

appraisals (Struch and Schwartz 1989). We thus predict

that the negative effects of applicant smoking status on

reactions and perceptions will occur mainly when one

holds less favorable attitudes towards smoking.

Hypothesis 4 The direct and indirect effects of applicant

smoking status on initial impressions of the applicant will

be moderated by personal attitudes towards smoking.

Finally, it is possible that situational factors also mod-

erate assessments that one makes of smokers as potential

employees. One important negative perception associated

with smokers is that of lower cleanliness (Dermer and

Jacobsen 1986). Non-smokers especially tend to perceive

smokers as being less clean than non-smokers (Seiter et al.

2010). In the organizational context, tobacco odors on the

breath of an employee can be perceived as problematic

(Malouff et al. 1993). Cigarette smells could, for instance,

be perceived as offensive to customers and may fuel ones’

reluctance to hire smokers. However, such an issue would

be more valid for jobs involving customer contact (e.g., a

customer service job) as opposed to back office jobs (e.g.,

an inventory management job). We thus predict that the

negative effects of applicant smoking status on reactions

and perceptions will be stronger when the job involves

customer contact.

Hypothesis 5 The direct and indirect effects of applicant

smoking status on initial impressions of the applicant will

be stronger for customer service jobs than inventory

management jobs.

Method

Samples

We tested our hypotheses within two different (non- rep-

resentative) samples. Our first sample comprised under-

graduate business students at a major Canadian university.

A total of 161 students that were recruited from a research

subject pool agreed to participate in the 15-min online

study in exchange for course credit. After eliminating

participants failing our manipulation check questions (see

below), the final sample included 122 respondents. The

average age was 20.3 (SD = 3.0) years. The majority of

participants were male (54 %), of Canadian nationality

(70 %), and native English speakers (78 %). They were

mostly non-smokers (86 %), although a few were regular

smokers (2 %), occasional smokers (7 %), or ex-smokers

(5 %). We obtained a post hoc estimation of students’

hiring experience based on an independent sample of stu-

dents drawn from the same subject pool (N = 206 and with

a similar demographic makeup), which indicated that

30.9 % had previous experience hiring people (with

M = 1.83, SD = 7.73 hires; this rose to 5.08 amongst

those that indicated prior hiring experience).

For our second sample, we recruited 269 participants via

Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk has been

described as a reliable approach for recruiting more diverse

and experienced samples that resemble organizational

samples more so than do student samples (Landers and

Smoking as a job killer: Reactions to smokers in personnel selection 963

123

Behrend 2015; Paolacci et al. 2010). Participants were

invited to partake in a short study about recruitment, and

engaged in the same 15-min online study in exchange for

US$1. We eliminated 19 individuals that failed our

manipulation check questions or who were not based in the

U.S. (based on the geo-IP location feature in our online

survey system). In order to work with a sample of

respondents who had experience in selecting employees,

we also eliminated those who had never participated in

hiring employees (i.e., 107 respondents). This led to a final

sample of 143 U.S. respondents with previous hiring

experience. The average experience involved 11.6

(SD = 24.0) hires, but only a few respondents in our

sample can be considered as professional recruiters (e.g.,

about 20 % of our final sample participated in hiring more

than 10 employees). The average age of the sample was

34.6 (SD = 12.5) years. The majority of participants were

male (57 %), White (76 %), and college or university

educated (60 %). Although they were mostly non-smokers

(63 %), some were regular smokers (13 %), occasional

smokers (9 %), or ex-smokers (15 %).

Procedure

Participants were asked to imagine that they were working

part-time as an assistant manager at a local electronics

store. They were then told that as part of their duties, they

were to help the store manager in selecting and hiring a

new employee. Participants were then randomly assigned

to read one of the four hypothetical scenarios with different

vignettes (see the experimental design section). After

reading the scenario, participants were asked to complete

measures of negative emotions, likelihood of CWB, initial

impressions about the applicant, attitude towards smoking,

and demographic variables (in this order). Upon comple-

tion, participants were thanked and debriefed as to the

purpose of the research.

Experimental Design

A 2 (applicant status: smoker versus control) by 2 (job

type: customer service versus inventory management)

between-subjects experimental design was used. The fic-

titious scenario described a situation where the assistant

manager (i.e., the participant) was said to arrive at the store

where he/she was to interview applicants for a customer

service versus an inventory management position. On the

way into work, this assistant manager noticed a person

standing outside the store portrayed as talking on a cell-

phone while smoking a cigarette versus only talking on the

phone. The assistant manager then got ready for the

interview in the office area, and as the applicant entered the

office, realized that this was the person encountered on the

way into the store. We depicted cellphone use in the con-

trol condition in order to avoid showing the applicant

simply standing there and doing nothing, and to make the

smoking manipulation more subtle.

Manipulation Check

Participants were asked to indicate the status of the appli-

cant (talking on a cellphone, asking someone for direc-

tions, waiting for the bus, talking on a cellphone and

smoking) as a manipulation check for smoking status, and

the main type of activities (interacting with customers,

attending to phone calls, managing product inventory,

making deliveries) as a manipulation check for job type.

The percentages of correct responses were 84 and 96 % for

smoking status and 83 % and 95 % for job type, in the

Canadian student sample and U.S. MTurk sample,

respectively. This suggests that our manipulations were

effective. Moreover, because inattentive or careless

respondents may threaten the validity of online studies

(Huang et al. 2012), participants failing to respond cor-

rectly to these questions were deemed inattentive and thus

eliminated from the analyses in both samples.

Measures

Negative Emotions

Participants’ emotional reactions to the scenario were

captured via a 5-item scale (a = .94 in the Canadian sample/a = .92 in the US sample) taken from the PANAS instrument (Watson et al. 1988). Participants rated how

they felt at that moment (using the following adjectives:

angry, upset, disgusted, annoyed, and distressed) on

5-point Likert scales, with 1 = not at all and 5 = very

much so.

Likelihood of CWB

We measured participants’ perceptions of the applicant’s

likelihood of engaging in CWB at work with a 13-item

scale (a = .91/.94) adapted from Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) organizational deviance measure. Items were

introduced with to what extent do you think that the

applicant would be likely to… and included nine items from the original scale (e.g., put little effort into their work,

come in late to work without permission) as well as four

items more specific to smokers’ counterproductive behav-

iors that were developed based on open-ended comments

collected in a pilot study (e.g., take a lot of breaks, not

present a well-groomed and professional appearance).

Responses were captured on 5-point Likert scales, where

1 = very unlikely and 5 = very likely.

964 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

Attitude Towards Smoking

Four 7-point semantic differential scale items anchored by

favorable/unfavorable, negative/positive, dislike/like, and

bad/good were used to capture participants’ attitude

towards smoking (a = .94/.96). This set of bipolar adjec- tives is similar to those used for assessing attitudes towards

various attitude objects (such as, attitude towards the act of

engaging in an activity; Oliver and Bearden 1985). We

note that we chose to use participants’ attitudes towards

smoking and not their smoking status as our moderator.

Yet, attitudes towards smoking were strongly related to the

current smoking status of respondents. For instance, regular

smokers (n = 3, M = 3.97, SD = .38 in the Canadian

sample/n = 18, M = 3.81, SD = 1.40 in the U.S. sample)

had much more positive attitudes than non-smokers

(n = 105, M = 1.49, SD = .87/n = 90, M = 1.66,

SD = 1.10).

Initial Impressions of the Applicant

Participants indicated their initial impressions of the

applicant’s potential qualifications for the position using a

4-item scale (a = .78/.84) adapted from previous research in personnel selection (e.g., Krings et al. 2011): excellent

communication skills, teamwork skills, interpersonal skills,

and leadership skills. Responses were captured on 5-point

Likert scales, where 1 = strongly disagree and

5 = strongly agree.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations between the main

variables (including our experimental manipulations) are

presented in Table 1.

We tested our hypotheses first by using multiple

regressions (Baron and Kenny 1986). Results are presented

in Table 2. In Step 1, we assessed the effects of the

experimentally manipulated applicant smoking status (i.e.,

smoker vs. non-smoker), attitude towards smoking, and job

type on negative emotions, likelihood of CWB, and initial

impressions of the applicant. In Step 2, we entered the two-

way interaction terms (applicant smoking status 9 atti-

tudes towards smoking, smoking status 9 job type, and job

type 9 attitudes). In Step 3, we entered the three-way

interaction (status 9 job type 9 attitudes). Finally, in Step

4, we entered negative emotions and perceived deviance as

mediators that predict initial impressions.

In the Canadian student sample, we found full support

for Hypothesis 1 (that the initial impression of job candi-

dates that smoke was more negative than those that are

not), Hypothesis 2 (that negative emotions mediate the

impact of applicant smoking status on initial impressions),

and Hypothesis 3 (that perceived likelihood of CWB acts

as a mediator). We also found partial support for Hypoth-

esis 4 (that attitudes towards smoking acted as a modera-

tor). However, Hypothesis 5 (job type as a moderator) was

not supported. In Step 1, applicant smoking status signifi-

cantly predicted negative emotions (b = .73, SE = .18,

p \ .01), likelihood of CWB (b = .46, SE = .11, p \ .01), and perceived initial impressions (b = -.32, SE = .10,

p \ .01). In Step 3, the applicant smoking status x smoking attitudes interaction significantly predicted negative emo-

tions (b = -.54, SE = .24, p \ .05) but not likelihood of CWB nor initial impressions. Moreover, job type did not

significantly interact with smoking status. Finally, likeli-

hood of negative emotions (b = -.12, SE = .05, p \ .05) and CWB (b = -.30, SE = .08, p \ .01) both signifi- cantly predicted perceived initial impressions in Step 4.

The mediation was full, since the effect of applicant

smoking status disappeared in Step 4.

The story was slightly different with the U.S. sample

(i.e., respondents with hiring experience). We found partial

support for Hypotheses 1 and 2, full support for

Hypotheses 3 and 4, but no support for Hypothesis 5. In

Step 1, applicant smoking status significantly predicted

negative emotions (b = .38, SE = .13, p \ .01), but not likelihood of CWB or initial impressions. However, in Step

3, the applicant smoking status x smoking attitudes inter-

action significantly predicted negative emotions

(b = -.39, SE = .14, p \ .05), likelihood of CWB (b = - .44, SE = .12, p \ .01), and (to a lesser extent) initial impressions (b = .21, SE = .11, p \ .10). Moreover, likelihood of CWB significantly predicted perceived initial

impressions in Step 4 (b = -.48, SE = .07, p \ .01), but not negative emotions. Once again, job type did not serve

as a moderator.

To further explore our conditional process, we used

Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS. Because job

type did not act as a moderator in the regression results,

we only included attitudes towards smoking in the model

(and hence used PROCESS Model 8). To test our indirect

effects, we built 95 % bias-corrected bootstrap confidence

intervals (Hayes and Scharkow 2013), estimated from

10,000 bootstrap samples. Furthermore, we used a flood-

light analysis (Spiller et al. 2013) to examine the direct

and indirect effects at all values of the moderator (i.e.,

attitudes towards smoking), highlighting the Johnson-

Neyman point(s) where effects reach the level of signif-

icance. Such an approach eliminates the arbitrariness of

choosing test values such as Mean ± 1 Standard Devia-

tion to highlight a moderation (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer

2006).

Results suggest that, independent of attitudes towards

smoking, there was no direct effect of applicant smoking

Smoking as a job killer: Reactions to smokers in personnel selection 965

123

status on initial impressions. Yet, significant indirect

effects were observed through likelihood of CWB (and

negative emotion in the student sample) depending on

attitudes towards smoking. In the Canadian student sample,

we found negative indirect effects of applicant smoking

status on initial impressions through both negative emo-

tions and likelihood of CWB. Yet, these effects were sig-

nificant only when attitudes towards smoking were smaller

than 3 (on a 1–7 scale). In the U.S. sample, the negative

indirect effect through likelihood of CWB was significant

when attitudes towards smoking were smaller than 2.

Interestingly, when respondents’ attitudes towards smoking

were equal to or above 3.5, this indirect effect turned

positive and significant. It is important to note that most of

the respondents had fairly negative attitudes towards

smoking, and more so in the Canadian student (i.e.,

M = 1.67, 85 % scoring below 3) than the experienced

U.S. sample (i.e., M = 2.22, 60 % scoring 2 or below).

Discussion

Findings and Theoretical Implications

Results of this research provide initial evidence of the

potential adverse impact of smoker stigmatization on

people (i.e., job applicants) that are at the ‘‘receiving end’’

of HR practices (Mabey, et al. 1998) using an experimental

design. More specifically, respondents are found to (di-

rectly or indirectly) form more negative initial impressions

about applicants who smoke versus do not smoke.

Although initial impressions can change when more job-

related information becomes available, they often impact

final decisions in interviews (Stewart et al. 2008). For

instance, interviewers are likely to engage in confirmatory

processes by asking questions and evaluating responses in

ways that confirm their initial impressions (Derous et al. in

press; Dougherty et al. 1994; Macan and Dipboye 1990).

As such, applicant smoking status triggers biases similar to

those triggered by the other stigmatizing features such as

age, ethnicity, or obesity. Our research, thus, provides

initial evidence suggesting that the social devaluation of

smokers found in society (e.g., Bayer and Stuber 2006;

Kim and Shanahan 2003) can potentially carry over into

the hiring process. Moreover, these findings complement

law and labor relations research (e.g., Pugsley 1993;

Warner 1994) to paint a more comprehensive picture of

how smokers can be treated within organizations, and

encourage the adoption of human resource management

that is morally obligated to avoid discrimination (Demui-

jnck 2009). They also respond to calls by tobacco control

researchers for greater investigations into the impact of

strident societal anti-smoking sentiments on the lives of

smokers (e.g., by Seiter et al. 2010).

Our study also points to mechanisms and pathways that

trigger the devaluation of smokers. Building on the dual-

process model of stigmas (Pryor et al. 2004), we examined

examples of both reflexive (i.e., emotional reactions) and

rule-based (i.e., perceived likelihood of CWB) processes.

We found only partial support for an indirect effect through

negative emotions (i.e., smoking status impacted such

emotions in both samples, but the mediation was only

present with student respondents). Moreover, our results

suggest that the impact of applicant smoking status on

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations

between main variables

m sd 1 2 3 4 5

Canadian students

1. Smoking status – –

2. Job type – – -.02

3. Smoking attitude 1.68 1.01 .14 .01

4. Negative emotions 2.17 1.02 .34** -.02 -.12

5. Likelihood of CWB 2.87 .62 .35** -.05 -.08 .32**

6. Initial impressions 3.04 .54 -.27** -.07 .11 -.36** -.46**

U.S. sample

1. Smoking status – –

2. Job type – – .11

3. Smoking attitude 2.22 1.43 .08 .04

4. Negative emotions 1.53 .80 .22** .00 -.19*

5. Likelihood of CWB 2.69 .72 .03 .02 -.39** .36**

6. Initial impressions 3.15 .63 .01 -.09 .28** -.30** -.61**

N = 122 and 143; Smoking status: 0 = non-smoker, 1 = smoker; Job type: 0 = Inventory management, 1 =

customer relations; CWB = counterproductive work behaviors

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

966 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

initial impressions was fully mediated via perceived like-

lihood of CWB in both samples. This suggests that the less

favorable evaluations were mostly the result of rule-based

rather than reflexive processes (Pryor et al. 2004). In other

words, initial assessments of applicants were based more

upon adverse inferences made about smokers’ potential

behaviors than simply on emotional reactions (e.g., dis-

gust). These findings imply that inferences about smokers

potential future behaviors were aligned with more general

societal perceptions of smokers as objectionable and

Table 2 Regressions for Mediational Tests

Canadian students U.S. sample

Negative

emotions

Likelihood

of CWB

Initial

impressions

Negative

emotions

Likelihood

of CWB

Initial

impressions

Step 1

(Constant) 2.12** (20) 2.82** (.12) 3.10** (.11) 1.61** (.14) 3.07** (.13) 2.94** (.11)

Job type -.03 (.17) -.06 (.11) -.08 (.10) -.02 (.13) .05 (.11) -.13 (.10)

Applicant smoking status .73** (.18) .46** (.11) -.32** (.10) .38** (.13) .09 (.11) -.01 (.10)

Attitude towards smoking -.17 (.09) -.08 (.05) .08 �

(.05) -.12** (.05) -.20** (.04) .12** (.04)

Total R 2

.14 .14 .10 .09 .16 .09

Step 2

(Constant) 2.04** (.29) 2.79** (.17) 3.20** (.16) 1.24** (.18) 2.51** (.17) 3.22** (.19)

Job type -.29 (.36) -.27 (.21) -.12 (.19) .09 (.26) .40 �

(.21) -.20 (.21)

Applicant smoking status 1.07** (.38) .51* (.22) -.29 (.20) .81** (.26) .75** (.22) -.45* (.21)

Attitude towards smoking -.09 (.15) .01 (.09) -.04 (.08) .09 (.08) .07 (.07) -.01 (.07)

Status 9 Attitudes -.26 (.17) -.16 (.10) .10 (.09) -.26** (.09) -.31** (.07) .21** (.07)

Status 9 Job type .21 (.35) .49* (.21) -.41* (.19) .28 (.25) .04 (.21) -.03 (.20)

Job type 9 Attitudes .10 (.17) -.01 (.10) .14 (.09) -.12 (.09) -.18* (.08) .05 (.07)

Total R 2

.17 .20 .16 .16 .28 .15

Step 3

(Constant) 1.80** (.33) 2.78** (.20) 3.21** (.18) 1.10** (.24) 2.38** (.20) 3.22** (.19)

Job type .17 (.45) -.25 (.27) -.15 (.25) -.16 (.18) .63* (.27) -.19 (.26)

Applicant smoking status 1.54** (.47) .52 �

(.28) -.32 (.25) 1.09** (.35) 1.02** (.30) -.44 (.28)

Attitude towards smoking .07 (.18) .01 (.11) -.05 (.10) .16 (.10) .14 (.08) -.01 (.09)

Status 9 Attitudes -.54* (.24) -.17 (.15) .11 (.13) -.39* (.14) -.44** (.12) .21 �

(.11)

Status 9 Job type -.76 (.68) .46 (.41) -.35 (.37) -.19 (.47) -.41 (.40) -.05 (.38)

Job type 9 Attitudes -.20 (.25) -.02 (.15) .16 (.14) -.23 �

(.13) -.28* (.11) .04 (.10)

Status 9 Job type 9 Attitudes .58 (.35) .01 (.21) -.03 (.19) .22 (.18) .20 (.15) .01 (.14)

Total R 2

.19 .20 .16 .17 .29 .15

Step 4

(Constant) 4.24** (.27) 4.45** (.23)

Job type -20 (.22) .13 (.22)

Applicant smoking status .01 (.24) .13 (.22)

Attitude towards smoking -.04 (.09) .07 (.07)

Status 9 Attitudes -.00 (.12) -.04 (.10)

Status 9 Job type -.31 (.34) -.25 (.32)

Job type 9 Attitudes .13 (.12) -.11 (.09)

Status 9 Job type 9 Attitudes .04 (.17) .12 (.12

Negative emotions -.12* (.05) -.07 (.06)

Likelihood of CWB -.30** (.08) -.48** (.07)

Total R 2

.31 .39

N = 122 (Canadian sample) and 143 (U.S. sample); Values are unstandardized b-values with standard errors in parentheses, Job type: 0 =

Inventory management, 1 = Customer service

CWB counterproductive work behaviors �

p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Smoking as a job killer: Reactions to smokers in personnel selection 967

123

deviant, artifacts themselves of decades of tobacco de-

marketing tactics (Bayer and Stuber 2006; Kim and

Shanahan 2003). Although such inferences correspond to

the wide ranging generalizations made about people that

smoke (Stuber et al. 2008), there is no evidence that

smokers are indeed more likely to engage in CWB. Such

inferences may thus further limit smokers’ access to fair

and equal job opportunities, a key condition of non-dis-

crimination (Demuijnck 2009).

Moreover, in line with both the dual-process model (Pryor

et al. 2004) and social identity theory (Struch and Schwartz

1989), our results highlight the important role of stable atti-

tudes. More precisely, our mediations were moderated by

respondents’ own attitudes towards smoking. Respondents

with more negative attitudes towards smoking perceived

applicants who were smokers (vs. non-smokers) more neg-

atively, as such applicants were believed as more likely to

engage in CWB. Those with more positive attitudes towards

smoking did not do so (and initial impressions were more

positive when respondents possessed very positive attitudes

towards smoking). Although such similarity effects are often

used when assessing applicants (Kristof-Brown et al. 2002),

they clearly bias the decision-making process (Latham et al.

1975). Interestingly, the effects of positive attitudes were

mostly visible in the more experienced U.S. sample. Indeed,

participants in this sample were older and had slightly less

negative attitudes towards smoking. This is reflective of

wider societal trends where smoking rates skew higher

within the 25–44 years range (similar to the age profile in the

U.S. sample) than the 18–24 range (more indicative of the

age range in the Canadian sample; U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention 2016).

Finally, our results suggest that the impact of applicants’

smoking status was similar for both job types (i.e., cus-

tomer service and inventory management jobs). These

findings strengthen the potentially unethical nature of

smoker stigmatization, as such reactions cannot simply be

justified on the basis of legitimate job qualification con-

cerns, such as those of smokers’ having bad breath and the

smell of tobacco being problematic for front-end positions

involving customer reactions to cigarette odors. However,

it is also possible that respondents were concerned about

unclean employees interacting with coworkers as much as

interacting with customers.

Practical Implications

Because smoking remains a non-job-related leisure activity

(Chadwick 2006; Lecker 2009) that is not empirically

associated with lower job performance or counterproduc-

tive behaviors (Morrow and Leedle 2002), it would be

unethical for organizations to rely on such features to

evaluate applicants. That smokers are at risk for being

stigmatized is recognized as important at organizational as

well as societal levels, and this mindset is reflected within

recent legislations that have been put in place (e.g., in the

U.S.) to protect smokers against discrimination (Schmidt

et al. 2013). Such biases may further marginalize those

sections of society that already endure social marginal-

ization, such as ethnic and racial minorities and the

underprivileged among whom smoking rates tend to be

higher. Organizations are morally obligated to protect the

integrity of the hiring process and foster fairness towards

all individuals (Arvey and Renz 1992).

The need for protection against a smokerism bias is

further intensified given the adverse societal effects of

stigmatization. Stereotypes can be self-fulfilling whereby

targeted individuals behave in stereotype confirming ways

(Snyder et al. 1977; Steele 1997). For instance, stigmatized

people (smokers) may intensify their engagement in the

very behaviors (smoking) that they are stigmatized for.

Smokers in this adversarial milieu are also at risk for

withdrawal from mainstream society, with a preference for

the company of other smokers (Stuber et al. 2008), a for-

mula likely designed for continued or exacerbated tobacco

use.

A straightforward implication for potential job appli-

cants, in the absence of abstinence, may be to move this

behavior deeper into the shadows, especially against a

cultural backdrop where smokers are herded and made

visible in restricted smoking areas. In fact, Goffman (1963)

argues that stigmatization is intensified when targeted

individuals are seen to congregate together in the same

location. Smoking policies, including those implemented

within organizations, that group smokers together in pub-

licly visible designated areas located away from work and

living spaces further deepen a smokerism bias and invite

re-examination (Gilbert et al. 1998). Applicants’ quest to

keep smoking behaviors hidden from public view is made

more difficult in the era of social media where public

scrutiny occurs in virtual as well as physical spaces. This

suggests the sanitization of smoking portrayals on social

media sites such as Facebook and Twitter that are exten-

sively reviewed by employers (Roulin and Bangerter 2013)

in addition to within physical locations. Such recommen-

dations must also acknowledge that hiding true smoking

habits forces applicants to carry undue psychological bur-

dens arising from the fear of being found out. The further

possibility that smokers lack awareness of the aversion

generated within others (Kim and Shanahan 2003) speaks

to the need for better information and training for people

seeking employment. This information can additionally

benefit smokers by deterring the behavior itself as smokers

are found to display greater willingness to quit upon

exposure to negative public reactions (Kim and Shanahan

2003).

968 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This research has some limitations and associated avenues

for additional research. We relied on a controlled experi-

mental design with hypothetical scenarios and students or

online panel respondents. Such a methodology is typical in

empirical research on stigmatization in the selection context

(e.g., Finkelstein et al. 1995; Madera and Hebl 2012;

McElroy et al. 2014). Moreover, it allows for an initial

assessment of anti-smoker biases free of extraneous con-

founding factors and possible endogeneity issues associated

with surveys relying on self-report measures (although our

mediators/moderators and dependent variable were mea-

sured at the same time, possibly leading to common-method

variance issues). However, it clearly limits the external

validity and generalizability of our findings. Our results

should thus be replicated with a sample of professional

recruiters or hiring managers. Future research could also use

study designs resembling more realistic hiring situations

(e.g., with more information about applicants’ qualifica-

tions). Ultimately, field studies (e.g., using an audit

approach; Derous and Ryan 2012) should be conducted.

Future research should attempt to replicate our results in

other countries or contexts. For instance, we collected data

in Canada and in the U.S. Variations in our findings

between these two samples could be attributed to differ-

ences in age and thus, indirectly, smoking status and atti-

tudes towards smoking. As such, additional studies should

be conducted in countries or contexts where tobacco use is

still higher than in North America, where smoke-free leg-

islations are more recent, or where prevention initiatives

are only in their early stages and have not yet turned public

sentiment forcefully against cigarette smoking. For

instance, many European countries have implemented

smoke-free legislations only recently (Mons et al. 2013).

Attitudes towards smoking may also be more positive in

some Asian countries.

Conclusion

Over the past few decades, anti-smoking campaigns have

transformed general public sentiments towards smokers

into full-blown stigmatization. Smokers are now stigma-

tized in a variety of domains including the workplace.

While some organizations have engaged in smoker-free

policies, a number of states in the U.S. have also passed

recent legislations that prohibit employers from refusing to

hire smokers. Moreover, using smoking status as a selec-

tion criterion is controversial since its relationship with job

performance has not been formally demonstrated. Critics

have begun to argue that employers have no ethical right to

discriminate against smokers for non-job-related behaviors.

Our research provides initial evidence that job applicants

who are viewed as smokers could be stigmatized. This

suggests that smokers would increase their chances of

being offered a job by hiding their smoking status (an

unfortunate maladaptive response in the absence of

smoking cessation), and organizations that engage in such

smokerism biases may end up overlooking potentially

qualified applicants. Overall, our research answers calls

placed by researchers within the anti-smoking arena as well

as the ethical human resource management domain that

organizations should consider the human costs associated

with how stakeholders are treated.

Acknowledgments The authors thank Raymond Lavoie for his help with the data collection, and Lukas Neville for his suggestions on

earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

Alesci, N., Forster, J., & Blaine, T. (2003). Smoking visibility,

perceived acceptability, and frequency in various locations

among youth and adults. Preventive Medicine, 36, 272–281.

doi:10.1016/S0091-7435(02)00029-4.

Americans for Non-smokers’ Rights. (2006). Recipe for a Smoke Free

Society. Berkeley, CA.

Arvey, R. D., & Renz, G. L. (1992). Fairness in the selection of

employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 331–340. doi:10.

1007/BF00870545.

Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. (2012). Personnel selection

as a signaling game. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,

719–738. doi:10.1037/a0026078.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator

variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.

51.6.1173.

Bayer, R., & Stuber, J. (2006). Tobacco control, stigma, and public

health: Rethinking the relations. American Journal of Public

Health, 96, 47–50. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure

of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

349–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349.

Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B.

(2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to

authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Orga-

nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97.

doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2867.

Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drugs Survey. (2013). Retrieved

from http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/science-research-sciences-

recherches/data-donnees/ctads-ectad/summary-sommaire-2013-

eng.php

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Current Cigarette

Smoking Among Adults—United States, 2005–2014. Morbidity

and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR). Retrieved from http://

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6444a2.htm?s_

cid=mm6444a2_w

Chadwick, K. L. (2006). Is leisure-time smoking a valid employment

consideration? Albany Law Review, 70, 117–141.

Cohen, S. L., & Bunker, K. A. (1975). Subtle effects of sex role

stereotypes on recruiters’ hiring decisions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 60, 566–572. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.60.5.566.

Smoking as a job killer: Reactions to smokers in personnel selection 969

123

Demuijnck, G. (2009). Non-discrimination in human resources

management as a moral obligation. Journal of Business Ethics,

88, 83–101. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0100-6.

Dermer, M. L., & Jacobsen, E. (1986). Some potential negative

consequences of cigarette smoking: Marketing research in

reverse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 702–725.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01754.x.

Derous, E., Buijsrogge, A., Roulin, N., & Duyck, W. (in press). Why

your stigma isn’t hired: A dual-process framework of interview

bias. Human Resource Management Review.

Derous, E., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Documenting the adverse impact

of résumé screening: Degree of ethnic identification matters.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 464–474.

doi:10.1111/ijsa.12009.

Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994).

Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: A

field study of interviewer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 79, 659–665.

Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J., & Raju, M. S. (1995). Age

discrimination in simulated employment contexts: An integrative

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 652–663. doi:10.

1037/0021-9010.80.6.652.

Garrett, B. E., Dube, S. R., Trosclair, A., Caraballo, R. S., &

Pechacek, T. F. (2011). Cigarette Smoking—United States,

1965–2008. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 60, 109–113.

Gilbert, D. G. (1995). Smoking: Individual differences, psychopathol-

ogy, and emotion. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Gilbert, G. R., Hannan, E. L., & Lowe, K. B. (1998). Is smoking

stigma clouding the objectivity of employee performance

appraisal? Public Personnel Management, 27, 285–300.

Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems:

An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management

Review, 18, 694–734. doi:10.2307/258595.

Glick, P., Zion, C., & Nelson, C. (1988). What mediates sex

discrimination in hiring decisions? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 55, 178–186. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.

178.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled

identity. Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gray, N. J. (2005). The case for smoker-free workplaces. Tobacco

Control, 14, 143–144. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.010215.

Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote

acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 288–297. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.288.

Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A Review and

Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 261–278.

doi:10.1023/A:1014090411946.

Greenwood, M. R. (2013). Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and

research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 355–366. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1354-y.

Guest, D., & Woodrow, C. (2012). Exploring the boundaries of

human resource managers’ responsibilities. Journal of Business

Ethics, 111, 109–119. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1438-8.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and

conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.

New York: Guilford.

Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of

inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation

analysis: Does method really Matter? Psychological Science, 24,

1918–1927. doi:10.1177/0956797613480187.

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002).

Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias

toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy Bulletin, 28, 815–825. doi:10.1177/0146167202289010.

Houle, B., & Siegel, M. (2009). Smoker-free workplace policies:

developing a model of public health consequences of workplace

policies barring employment to smokers. Tobacco Control, 18,

64–69. doi:10.1136/tc.2008.026229.

Huang, J., Curran, P., Keeney, J., Poposki, E., & DeShon, R. (2012).

Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to

Surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114.

doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8.

Jack, G., Greenwood, M. K., & Schapper, J. (2012). Frontiers,

intersections and engagements of ethics and HRM. Journal of

Business Ethics, 111, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1427-y.

Kim, S. H., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Stigmatizing smokers: Public

sentiment toward cigarette smoking and its relationship to

smoking behaviors. Journal of health communication, 8,

343–367. doi:10.1080/10810730305723.

King, E. B., Rogelberg, S. G., Hebl, M. R., Braddy, P. W., Shanock,

L. R., Doerer, S. C., & McDowell-Larsen, S. (2014). Waistlines

and ratings of executives: Does executive status overcome

obesity stigma? Human Resource Management,. doi:10.1002/

hrm.21667.

Krings, F., Sczesny, S., & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences

as mediators of age discrimination: The role of competence and

warmth. British Journal of Management, 22, 187–201. doi:10.

1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00721.x.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Barrick, M. R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant

impression management: Dispositional influences and conse-

quences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of

Management, 28, 27–46. doi:10.1177/014920630202800103.

Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth:

Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk,

and other convenience samples. Perspectives on Science and

Practice: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142–

164.

Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training

managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.60.5.550.

Lecker, M. (2009). The smoking penalty: Distributive justice or

smokism? Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 47–64. doi:10.1007/

s10551-008-9691-6.

Legge, K. (1998). Is HRM ethical? Can HRM be ethical? In M.

Parker (Ed.), Ethics & Organizations (pp. 150–172). London:

Sage.

Leigh, J. P. (1986). Correlates of absence from work due to illness.

Human Relations, 39, 81–100. doi:10.1177/001872678603900

105.

Leshner, G., Bolls, P., & Thomas, E. (2009). Scare’ em or disgust

‘em: The effects of graphic health promotion messages. Health

Communication, 24, 447–458. doi:10.1080/1041023090302

3493.

Levine, P. B., Gustafson, T. A., & Velenchik, A. D. (1997). More bad

news for smokers? The effects of cigarette smoking on wages.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50, 493–509.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual

Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.

1.363.

Mabey, C., Skinner, D., & Clark, T. (1998). Experiencing human

resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Macan, T. H., & Dipboye, R. L. (1990). The relationship of

interviewer’s preinterview impressions to selection and recruit-

ment outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 745–768.

Madera, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2012). Discrimination against facially

stigmatized applicants in interviews: an eye-tracking and face-

to-face investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,

317–330. doi:10.1037/a0025799.

Malouff, J., Slade, J., Nielsen, C., Schutte, N., & Lawson, E. (1993).

US laws that protect tobacco users from employment discrim-

ination. Tobacco Control, 2, 132–138.

970 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive

behavior at work: a general perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 647–660. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647.

Markle, G. E., & Troyer, R. J. (1979). Smoke gets in your eyes:

cigarette smoking as deviant behavior. Social Problems, 26,

611–625.

McCool, J., Hoek, J., Edwards, R., Thomson, G., & Gifford, H.

(2013). Crossing the smoking divide for young adults: Expres-

sions of stigma and identity among smokers and nonsmokers.

Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 552–556. doi:10.1093/ntr/

nts136.

McElroy, J. C., Summers, J. K., & Moore, K. (2014). The effect of

facial piercing on perceptions of job applicants. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 26–38. doi:10.

1016/j.obhdp.2014.05.003.

Mons, U., Nagelhout, G. E., Allwright, S., Guignard, R., van den

Putte, B., Willemsen, M. C., & Breitling, L. P. (2013). Impact of

national smoke-free legislation on home smoking bans: findings

from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation

Project Europe Surveys. Tobacco Control, 22, e2–e9. doi:10.

1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050131.

Morrow, P. C., & Leedle, T. (2002). A comparison of job

performance and disciplinary records of smokers and nonsmok-

ers. The Journal of Psychology, 136, 339–349. doi:10.1080/

00223980209604161.

Mullins, T. W. (1982). Interview decision as a function of applicant race,

applicant quality and interviewer prejudice. Personnel Psychology,

35, 163–174. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02192.x.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and

depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a

muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259. doi:10.1037/

0033-2909.126.2.247.

Ng, E., & Wiesner, W. (2007). Are men always picked over women?

The effects of employment equity directives on selection

decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 177–187. doi:10.

1007/s10551-006-9266-3.

Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover effects in the

theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt.

Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 324–340. doi:10.1086/

208519.

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running

experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and

Decision Making, 5, 411–419. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1626226.

Petersen, L. E., & Krings, F. (2009). Are ethical codes of conduct

toothless tigers for dealing with employment discrimination?

Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 501–514. doi:10.1007/s10551-

008-9785-1.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational

tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression,

multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of

Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.

3102/10769986031004437.

Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Landau, S. (1999). A social-

psychological analysis of HIV-related stigma: A two-factor

theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1193–1211. doi:10.

1177/0002764299042007010.

Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., Yeadon, C., & Hesson-McInnis, M.

(2004). A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 436–452.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.436.

Pugsley, M. W. (1993). Nonsmoking hiring policies: examining the

status of smokers under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990. Duke Law Journal, 43, 1089–1114.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A Typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. doi:10.2307/256693.

Roehling, M. V. (2002). Weight Discrimination in the American

Workplace: Ethical Issues and Analysis. Journal of Business

Ethics, 40, 177–189. doi:10.1023/A:1020347305736.

Roulin, N., & Bangerter, A. (2013). Social networking websites in

personnel selection: A signaling perspective on recruiters’ and

applicants’ perceptions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12,

143–151. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000094.

Rozin, P., & Singh, L. (1999). The moralization of cigarette smoking

in the United States. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8,

321–337. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_07.

Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work

behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job

performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,

10, 5–11. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00189.

Schmidt, H., Voigt, K., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The ethics of not

hiring smokers. New England Journal of Medicine, 368,

1369–1371. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1301951.

Seiter, J. S., Weger, H. J., Merrill, M. L., Mark McKenna, R., &

Sanders, M. L. (2010). Nonsmokers’ perceptions of cigarette

smokers’ credibility, likeability, attractiveness, considerateness,

cleanliness, and healthiness. Communication Research Reports,

27, 143–158. doi:10.1080/08824091003738073.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception

and interpersonal behavior: on the self-fulfilling nature of social

stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,

656–666. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656.

Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterpro-

ductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives.

Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342–352. doi:10.

1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.002.

Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., & McClelland, G. H.

(2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero:

Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of

Marketing Research, 50, 277–288. doi:10.1509/jmr.12.0420.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape

intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist,

52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the

intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.69.5.797.

Stewart, G. L., Dustin, S. L., Barrick, M. R., & Darnold, T. C. (2008).

Exploring the handshake in employment interviews. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, 1139–1146.

Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: its

predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364–373. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.56.3.364.

Stuber, J., Galea, S., & Link, B. G. (2008). Smoking and the

emergence of a stigmatized social status. Social Science

and Medicine, 67, 420–430. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.

010.

Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 183–190. doi:10.

1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x.

Tate, C. (1999). Cigarette wars: The triumph of ‘‘the little white

slaver’’. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tews, M. J., Stafford, K., & Zhu, J. (2009). Beauty revisited: The

impact of attractiveness, ability, and personality in the assess-

ment of employment suitability. International Journal of Selec-

tion and Assessment, 17, 92–100. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.

00454.x.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.

Van Buren, H. J., Greenwood, M., & Sheehan, C. (2011). Strategic

human resource management and the decline of employee focus.

Smoking as a job killer: Reactions to smokers in personnel selection 971

123

Human Resource Management Review, 21, 209–219. doi:10.

1016/j.hrmr.2011.02.004.

Viscusi, W. K., & Hersch, J. (2001). Cigarette smokers as job risk

takers. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 269–280. doi:10.

1162/00346530151143806.

Warner, D. M. (1994). ‘‘We do not hire smokers’’: May employers

discriminate against smokers? Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 7, 129–140. doi:10.1007/BF02621208.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and

validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the

PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional

analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 55, 738–748. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.

738.

972 N. Roulin, N. Bhatnagar

123

Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved.