DOES MORALIZATION OF HEALTH NEGATIVELY AFFECT EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AT THE WORKPLACE
Master Thesis, MSc in Human Resource Management, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 11, 2017
HENDRIKE LINKE Student number: 3165021
Ubbo Emmiusstraat 30-13, 9711CC Groningen E-Mail: H.C.Linke@student.rug.nl
SUPERVISOR: DR. SUSANNE TÄUBER
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Susanne Täuber for all her help with developing the experiment and for her constant feedback and support. Furthermore, I want to thank my family and friends for supporting and encouraging me during my studies. Especially, I would like to thank my parents and my best friend Annika for believing in me and my brother Rasmus for giving comments on earlier drafts.
ABSTRACT
This study examines the possibly negative consequences of the implementation of a health program in organizations. Specifically, the study focusses on the perception of individual vs.
organizational responsibility for employees’ lifestyle. I propose that the perception of individual responsibility may have negative consequences on employee relations. This proposition is based on the fact that holding individuals accountable for behavior they show can start the process of moralization. Moralization of health, in turn, is hypothesized to enhance disgust towards colleagues’ living an unhealthy lifestyle. As a consequence of moralization and disgust,
employee relations are expected to worsen, as reflected by increased exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudice against, and categorization of colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle. Thus, the guiding question in my research is whether health programs that highlight individual
responsibility for health negatively affect employee relations at the workplace. The hypothesized effects of individual responsibility on employee relations, as mediated by moralization of health and disgust, were studied by conducting an internet based experiment. Analyses supported the hypotheses. The theoretical and practical implications of my findings are discussed, as well as limitations and potential future studies.
Keywords: Responsibility for health, moralization of health, disgust, employee relations, exclusion, discrimination, prejudice, categorization, health program
INTRODUCTION
Due to advanced technology, the main factor determining productivity and organizational functioning is human labor (Hafner, van Stolk, Saunders, Krapels, & Baruch, 2015). An absent or sick employee increases costs of health-related work issues. An absent employee increases costs, due to the need of substituting his / her working power and due to rescheduling his / her tasks, whereas a sick employee attending work increases costs since he / she is less productive when being sick. Health-related work issues cost an organization up to billions of dollars per year (Mattke, Balakrishnan, Bergamo, & Newberry, 2007). Thus, the importance of employee health at the workplace has been increasing for organizations in recent years. Employees’ contribution to organizational functioning and organizational performance depends largely on their health.
Other factors such as commitment and compliance are not further considered in this paper. A healthy lifestyle decreases the likelihood of being absent or less productive. Thus, employers’
concern about employees’ lifestyle increases. Moreover, the general population ages, due to declining birth rates and improved medical care. Therefore, politicians regularly adjust the retirement age. In Germany for example, it is at 67 years leading to an aging workforce. To satisfy their own demand of labor power, organizations need to employ a certain amount of high aged employees. Hence, it is essential to ensure a healthy lifestyle for employees. Consequently, many organizations implement practices such as health programs to support employees to stay healthy or become healthier. A healthy lifestyle is also a top priority on the European agenda (Euratom-Work programme 2014/2015). In the Netherlands for example, every capable citizen is asked to take responsibility for his / her own health (Toonrede, 2013).
When organizations implement a health program, the responsibility for employees’
lifestyle can be framed as the responsibility of two parties. First, employers can be held responsible for employees’ lifestyle, for instance by offering good working conditions and
healthy food. By providing healthy and diverse meals at the canteen, a company may take responsibility for employees’ health. Second, employees can be held responsible for their
lifestyle (Blikmans, 2016). If they decide to consume healthier food for instance, employees take responsibility for their own health. Overall, health programs are utilized to improve employees’
beliefs about the causes of poor health outcome. Little differences in the focus of responsibility can have vast consequences on how employees relate to each other. If the cause is internally attributed, meaning an employee is perceived to be responsible for his / her own unhealthy lifestyle, co-workers might punish him / her, because being individually responsible implies controllability over and intentionality of one’s own behavior. In addition, employees may be threatened for their own well-being by getting sick through an unhealthy lifestyle of a co-worker and may react with rejection (Blikmans, 2016).
Intention and purpose of behavior are the main characteristics of morality, the umbrella term for ethical and moral human behavior. Therefore, if health is ascribed to internal factors, an unhealthy lifestyle is moralized. Actions that were previously morally neutral turn into moral values (Rozin, 1999). Morality plays an important role for individual behavior and is relevant to social interactions within various groups and therefore at the workplace. Generally, morality is pertinent to social judgments of right and wrong social behavior and therefore motivates
individuals (Ellemers & van den Bos, 2012). At the workplace, however, moralization of health may divide the workforce in two groups – an in- and an outgroup. The distinction between colleagues with a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle is being substituted by the distinction between morally good and morally bad people. Therefore, I propose that the implementation of a health program at the workplace might trigger negative employee relations, if employees are held individually responsible for their own health. The primary good intention of health awareness
might have negative consequences such as prejudice against, categorization of, and punishment of unhealthy co-workers.
Much literature is concerned with health issues and its effects on relations within the workplace. Among others, it addresses smoking behavior and obesity (Vartanian, 2010;
Vartanian, Trewartha & Vanam, 2016; Townend, 2009). However, little literature is concerned with the relationship of perceived health-related responsibility, moralization of health, relations at the workplace, and the role of disgust in this context. Disgust is characterized as a strong internal feeling anchored in every person which influences relations between humans (Rozin, 1999). My research addresses this research gap, which is going to be academically beneficial as well as relevant to organizations. It should make managers aware of the possibly negative influences of the implementation of health programs on inter employee relations. Implementing practices such as health programs might have negative effects worth considering. Based on previous research, I examine whether moralization of health, as implied by holding individuals responsible for their health, leads to prejudice against, categorization of, and punishment of co-workers at the workplace through the emotion disgust. A second research gap is covered by considering categorization as negative consequence of perceived individual health responsibility and as new interaction dimension. To my knowledge, no research has investigated this. Thus, an important contribution is made to better understand employee relations influenced by moralization of health. The guiding question in my research is whether health programs that highlight individual responsibility for health negatively affect employee relations at the workplace. The first part of the present study is the theoretical background. I introduce the concept of moralization, disgust, prejudice, categorization, punishment and their relations. Next, I derive two hypotheses. The methodology is depicted, and the results of an internet based experiment are represented.
Subsequently, these results are discussed. Finally, advice for future research is presented as well as limitations revealed.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Moralization
Moralization is the process of transforming a preference into a value. Thereby, moral value is ascribed to actions which previously did not possess any (Rozin, Markwith & Stoess, 1997). Generally, values last longer than preferences and are more self-focused (McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1995). Certain situations automatically trigger moral intuitions and moral judgment. These judgments occur fast and are reflexive responses to certain behavior. Therefore, one can interpret behavior “through either a moral or a non-moral lens with different
consequences for their evaluation” (van Bavel, Packer, Haas, and Cunningham, 2012: 1).
Utilizing the moral lens triggers different consequences than the usage of the non-moral lens, such as quicker and more vigorous reactions to immoral behavior. Regarding the workplace, an employee using the moral lens may associate an unhealthy lifestyle quickly with intention,
controllability and therefore own responsibility. Often, moral values are internalized as part of the self (Rozin et al, 1997). To be able to judge behavior and classify it as moral or immoral a
suffering patient and an intentional agent are needed (van Bavel et al., 2012). Regarding
moralization of health, moralization involves attributing a negative lifestyle to internal factors. If an organization implements a health program, which holds individuals responsible for
employees’ lifestyle, intentional attribution might lead to an intentional agent (colleague with an unhealthy lifestyle), whereas a suffering patient might be created by negative consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle (higher work effort) for other employees. Therefore, both requirements for moralization might be present, if the causes of an unhealthy lifestyle are internalized (Blikmans,
2016). Having chosen the immoral behavior that provoked an unhealthy lifestyle then implies individual responsibility.
The process of moralization occurs at two stages, at the individual and the societal level (Rozin & Singh, 1999). Furthermore, moralization arises via “piggybacking” or moral expansion.
The latter implies people adopting new moral values, whereas “piggybacking” is the evaluation of an act according to a moral value already embodied in a person (Rozin, 1997). Moreover, moralization normally develops over time. Sometimes, governments and institutions get involved in this process by supporting and encouraging restrains of specific behavior in order to alter people’s understanding of what is best for them (Rozin & Singh, 1999), by levying taxes or establishing prohibitions (Rozin, 1999). Those interventions lead to employees judging co- workers engaging in restrained and moralized actions (Rozin & Singh, 1999), because these restrictions directly define morally right and morally wrong behavior and set a basis for judgments. Additionally, governmental persuasion increases social costs. First, control and monitoring costs increase. Second, tax income on restricted items decreases, due to a lower demand. Being held individual responsible for increased social costs enhances the process of moralization. The most recent example is the shifting of smoking from being a personal preference to a moral value. A smoker exposes bystanders to smoke, forcing them to smoke passively which affects others’ health negatively. Others are ultimately being harmed, which in return is perceived as immoral (Rozin, et al 1997) and punishable (Haidt, Koller & Dias, 1993).
Due to health’s increasing importance for companies, health programs are implemented.
Their main purpose is trying to enhance employees’ health to ensure a productive workforce.
However, health programs suggest that one party (employee or employer) is responsible for employees’ lifestyle. Thus, if employees are held individually responsible for their lifestyle, applying a health program may start the process of health moralization. At the workplace, both
requirements for moralization, an intentional agent as well as a suffering patient, may exist. The positive intention of a health program may result in unintended negative consequences such as negative affiliation towards unhealthy co-workers. Based on health’s increasing importance and the fact, that moral thinking is universal and binding for all people, moralization of health is an important topic for companies to consider.
Moral Emotion: Disgust
Based on the belief that one’s lifestyle is under individual control, pursuing an unhealthy lifestyle is perceived as violating a moral norm which evokes moral emotions. Disgust is an important moral emotion towards a target embodying harm (Vartanian et al., 2016). Generally, disgust is an emotion within interpersonal interactions. It is resistant to rational argumentation (Rozin & Singh, 1999), unlikely to be justified by cognitive reasons (Vartanian, Thomas, &
Vanman, 2013), and differs between individuals, depending on cultural differences and individual characteristics (Haidt, McCauley & Rozin, 1994).
Mostly, disgust is evoked by impairment to others or oneself (Rozin, 1999), such as decreasing a co-worker’s personal freedom. Among others, one’s personal freedom is decreased by increased health care costs. Healthy employees need to cover the enhanced costs due to
unhealthy lifestyles of colleagues indirectly. To cover the higher costs, tax rates may increase and impair the concerned employees (Vartanian et al., 2013). Therefore, an intended unhealthy lifestyle might trigger disgust (Hutcherson & Gross, 2011). Overall, the negative attitude towards unhealthy colleagues increases when unhealthy lifestyles increase. Furthermore, disgust is
evoked by violating the divinity code, one of three universal moral codes around the world.
Educated citizens of the Western world conceive disgust as unsavory but not immoral, if nobody is harmed. The strongest effect of experiencing disgust regularly addresses the act of harming
children. However, more traditional cultures and less educated citizens of the Western world construe disgust as an indicator of immoral behavior (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1992). Moreover, disgust creates an impossibly ideal concept of the human body (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). In Northern Europe, the ideal of beauty may be being tall, slim and tanned. Therefore, following an unhealthy lifestyle (excessive sun bathing, eating disorders) reflects the opposite of this ideal concept. Following Rozin and Fallon (1987), deviations of the ideal of beauty therefore may trigger disgust.
The main aspect of expressing disgust lies in demonstrating one’s own civilized behavior (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1993; Hubbard & Colosi, 2015). Pursuing an unhealthy lifestyle symbolizes being immoral (Lawler, 2005), which might damage the image people want to convey to others. Those others, in turn, might communicate their disapproval to the behavior by
displaying disgust.
Moralization of health is likely to enhance disgust towards individuals with an unhealthy lifestyle (Vartanian et al., 2013). Further, disgust legitimizes negative behavior towards different individuals and therefore affect employee relations. Thus, disgust is relevant with respect to prejudice and discrimination against others (Vartanian et al., 2016). Disgust evokes avoidance (Oaten, Stevenson, & Case, 2009) and therefore seems relevant for explaining exclusion at the workplace. In addition, moral bans are often related to disgust. Finding an action disgusting implies desiring to have no points of contact with the person engaging in the action. This desire is based on the theory of evolution – an inherent defense mechanism. In the past, disgust was evoked by people who might carry a disease. In order to not get infected and possibly die, avoidance of a disgusting person was essential (Vartanian, 2010). Thus, disgust is an appropriate mediator for the relation between moralization and relations within groups (Vartanian, 2010;
Vartanian et al., 2016).
Overall, disgust is an important intergroup emotion to understand people’s negative behavior towards others. At work, employees’ relationships are important for interaction. Feeling disgusted by a colleague complicates teamwork and decreases efficiency. Implementing a health program may start the process of moralization and may enhance disgust. The intended
improvement of employees’ lifestyles may therefore come at the expense of employee relations.
Based on the abovementioned facts, I expect disgust to mediate the relationship between perceived responsibility for health, moralization of health and employee relations.
Consequences of Health Moralization and Disgust at the Workplace
The most relevant intention of implementing a health program in an organization is strengthening the awareness of health’s importance. However, this may trigger negative consequences. If health programs depict employees to be individually responsible for their lifestyle, an unhealthy lifestyle is linked to internal causes. Being held individually responsible for an unhealthy lifestyle might therefore generate negative consequences on employee relations at work. The current research investigates two cognitive and two behavioral consequences of disgust. The latter are exclusion of and discrimination against colleagues which are consolidated to punishment. Categorization as well as prejudice are the cognitive consequences assessed. In the following each consequence is depicted in detail.
Prejudice. When negative behavior is perceived as being under individual control, an unhealthy lifestyle is considered as personal choice which evokes disliking (Crandall, D’Anello, Sakalli & Lazarus, 2001). By introducing health programs, an unhealthy lifestyle might be perceived as personal choice leading to health-based prejudice at work (Blikmans, 2016).
Antipathy towards others is prevalent across time, national boundaries and cultures. However, different from punishment, a strict distinction between an ingroup and an outgroup is not required
for prejudice. Crandall et al. (2001) depict prejudice as a negative affect which is directed to members of social groups. If people hold negative attributes towards a group which they hold individually responsible for their own lifestyle, they develop prejudice against these group members. Prejudice is predicted by the negative cultural value of a target and the tendency to hold people individually responsible. Individual opinions about controllability of behavior are linked to essential beliefs about society, because they are intricately related to social ideologies (Feather, 1996). In other words, people with a healthy lifestyle should be treated well, but people with an unhealthy lifestyle should be prejudiced against, because they are believed to have negative characteristics, such as laziness or low intelligence. Moreover, people are animated to favor consistent perceptions such as connecting bad objectives merely with other bad objectives over inconsistent perceptions (Crandall et al., 2001). If behavior is perceived as immoral such as living an unhealthy lifestyle, an affectively consistent negative alignment emerges towards people engaged in this behavior. Overall, prejudice against a member of a group occurs solely if the person is engaged with negatively valued and intentional behavior and thus is perceived as individually responsible for poor health (Rudolph, Wells, Weller, & Baltes, 2009).
At the workplace, prejudice against employees may be based on perceived individual responsibility for health and moralization of health due to health programs, leading employees to connect an unhealthy lifestyle with other negative alignments, based on the rule of consistency.
Categorization. Literature depicts the importance of perceiving others in terms of morality (Park & Penton-Voak, 2012; van Leeuwen, Park, & Penton-Voak, 2012). Meeting strangers implies spontaneously perceiving them in reference to social categorization. The most common robust dimensions along which people categorize others are sex, race, and age (Messick
& Mackie, 1989; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). However, recent research shows that morality is another dimension of categorization (van Leeuwen, et al., 2012). People tend to judge and
categorize others based on ascribed morality. Moral character derives from observing concrete behavior (Park & Penton-Voak, 2012) and is an indicator of potential costs of interaction with a newcomer (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Thus, categorization based on a moral dimension changes the way employees may interact with each other. Overall, social categorization becomes harmful, when it results in unequal treatment and has negative consequences for the members of the other group. Further, not feeling any connection with an individual triggers negative behavior towards him / her (Opotow, 1990).
Negative affiliations of co-workers are negative consequences of perceived individual responsibility for health and of the proposed moralization of health resulting from this. Ascribing intentionality to co-worker with an unhealthy lifestyle might lead to categorization of colleagues into the outgroup.
Punishment. To the extent that their behavior is perceived as immoral and intentional, employees with an unhealthy lifestyle might be punished by their co-workers. Exclusion and discrimination are the two most common forms of punishment (Ellemers & van de Bos, 2012).
The former is defined as ignoring and excluding individuals or small groups by other individuals or larger groups. Exclusion implies among others denying task information, excluding employees from social activities, ignoring them during group meetings, and physical removal from the work place. Excluding others is an adaptive behavior, applied by many people (Williams, 2007).
Because the need to belong to social groups is considered fundamental from an evolutionary approach (Ellemers & van de Bos, 2012), these punishments can be considered very averse. In general, humans believe that their own individual values are most important. Therefore, their tolerance level for different values is low. Thus, the perception of an unhealthy lifestyle quickly triggers exclusion (Gausel & Leach, 2011) of colleagues. Moral exclusion arises if a group or an individual is not inside the boundary in which rules, fairness, and moral values pertain. The
consequences of being excluded based on moral grounds can be severe. For instance, moral values, fairness and rules merely pertain to the members of the ingroup (Opotow, 1990).
Outgroup members are considered as expendable. Therefore, harming a member of the outgroup is appropriate and exclusion is one possible tool. Excluding individuals or small groups implies preferring ingroup members over outgroup members. Moral exclusion can be distinguished in severe and mild exclusion. Both approaches depict members of the outgroup as replaceable, suggesting decreasing moral obligations towards them, and decreasing collective achievements.
For this research, I concentrated on mild exclusion, implying the failing of recognizing others’
needs as well as enhancing others’ suffering. Harm doing is reflected by a lack of respect and unfair treatment. Generally, moral exclusion leads to unequal relationships within groups such as working teams (Opotow, 1990).
The second form of punishment discussed in this paper is discrimination against
colleagues. If a lifestyle is considered as a personal choice and if the personal choice reflects an immoral behavior, disliking for a person who acts thusly arises. Generally, if the responsibility for health is perceived as lying within employees individually, an unhealthy lifestyle can lead fellow employees to condemn unhealthy lifestyles as moral offense. Thus, people holding moral principles regarding health can be expected to judge unhealthy behavior as immoral and punish them (Belk, Wallendorf & Sherry, 1989) with discrimination. Discrimination occurs in a range of settings, especially within interpersonal relationships such as the work environment.
Overall, moralization of health at the workplace is expected to trigger the development of two separated groups – an in- and an outgroup; morally bad and morally good colleagues.
Following this logic, an appropriate action toward the outgroup is harm in form of punishment.
The moral collective might exclude members of the outgroup or discriminate against them based
on the perception of intentionally unhealthy lifestyles. Employee relations are affected negatively, reflected by exclusion and discrimination.
PRESENT RESEARCH
Employee health is valuable to organizations nowadays. To ensure health at the
workplace, many employers implement a health program. The health program either focuses on displaying employer’s responsibility for creating a healthy workplace or they enhance
employees’ awareness of their own responsibility to become or stay healthy. The process of moralization starts, if health is seen as individual responsibility based on intention and
controllability of behavior. When one’s own lifestyle is perceived to be under individual control, pursuing an unhealthy lifestyle is perceived as violating a moral norm. Although, health programs are utilized to enhance employee’s lifestyle and therefore to reduce health related costs, health programs might trigger negative consequences for employee relations, if health is moralized. At the workplace, employees interact with each other, due to inter alia teamwork or
interdependences within production stages. The violation of a healthy lifestyle and the perception of behavior as offense or immoral, might trigger prejudice against, categorization of, and
punishment of co-workers. It separates morally good colleagues from morally bad colleagues.
Hence, morality plays an important role for individual behavior in a group and in relationships (Ellmers & van den Bos, 2012). Furthermore, if behavior harms somebody, employees might experience disgust. This emotion might negatively influence the negative relationship between perceived responsibility for health, moralization of health and relations between colleagues.
Following Vartanian (2010) and Vartanian et al. (2016) disgust functions as a mediator. Finally, perceived individual responsibility for one’s own lifestyle might trigger the process of
moralization and might change the liking of a specific behavior to a disliking and eventually
result in disgust (Amato & Partridge, 1989) which negatively influences employee relations.
Therefore, and based on the above theory review, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1. Perceived responsibility for health at the workplace will increase exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudiced against, and categorization of unhealthy co-workers.
Hypothesis 2. This effect is mediated by moralization of health and feelings of disgust towards unhealthy or ill co-workers.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
METHODOLOGY Demographics and additional Variable
Overall, 110 women (57.9%) and 80 men (42.1%) participated in my experiment. The age ranged from 18 to 79 years. The average age was 36.28 (SD=14.64) years. Tenure ranged from zero to 53 years with an average of 7.65 (SD=9.77) years. Additionally, 74 participants stated that their employers offer health programs. These participants were asked to advance their opinion on
the person responsible for employees’ lifestyle on a 5 point Likert scale (1 = employees’
responsibility, 5 = employers’ responsibility). The answers ranged from seven participants stating employees should be responsible, to two participants stating the employer should be responsible with an average of 2.73 (SD = .83). This variable was named Perceived responsibility for health.
Procedure and Manipulation
I conducted an internet based experiment concerning health programs at the workplace and utilized the social media platform “Facebook” to reach many working employees in a short period. Qualtrix was used to create the experiment and to collect data. An anonymous internet link was utilized for distribution. All participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions on a 1-factorial between-subject design (individual responsibility for health,
organizational responsibility for health, control scenario). The experiment was designed to test whether participants’ focusing on individual vs. organizational responsibility affect moralization of health and whether moralization has negative influences on the relationship between
employees and whether this effect is mediated by disgust. Participants were provided with an introduction and welcome screen to explain the procedure, the purpose, and the required time for the experiment. To this end, the first scenario (67 participants) depicted individual employees as responsible for their lifestyle. Participants read “Recently, a company implemented a new health program. One HR advisor described the health program as follows: Healthy employees are a must for our organization. Our health program offers information and courses for our employees, to help them implement a healthier lifestyle. For example, our canteen provides healthy food as well as familiar meals. We see our employees as being individually responsible for their own health.
Our health program supports our employees to meet their responsibility requirements.” The second scenario (56 participants) depicted employers as responsible for employees’ lifestyle.
Participants read “Recently, a company implemented a new health program. One HR advisor described the health program as follows: Healthy employees are a must for our organization. Our health program offers information and courses for our employees, to help them implement a healthier lifestyle. For example, our canteen solely provides healthy food. We see our company as being responsible for employees’ health. Our health program supports the company to meet its responsibility requirements.” The third scenario (67 participants) was neutral with respect to responsibility and therefore the control scenario. Additionally, every scenario stated the
importance of healthy employees and indicated that sick employees increase health related costs as well as co-workers’ work effort. All participants read “Health is taking an important role within our lives. Thus, it is important at the workplace. There are different reasons: First, Employees need to work longer and therefore need to stay fit and applicable. Second, unhealthy employees increase their colleagues’ work effort and cause costs for the company. Therefore, companies’ implementation of health programs rises.” Subsequently, participants were required to state their individual agreement or disagreement with statements concerning moralization, disgust and employee relations based on reliable, valid, and established multi-item scales (see Appendix A). Unless indicated otherwise, all items were measured on Likert-scales ranging from
„1” (I disagree) to „5” (I agree). The language of the experiment was German. Participants answered the questions individually and voluntarily without obtaining any benefits, using own computers in own surroundings.
Measures
Moralization of health. Moralization of health was measured with four out of eight items from Mulder, Verboon, and de Cremer (2009). I excluded four items based on their
incompatibility with the workplace and with employee relations. I computed one variable by
taking the mean of the single scale items. Participants needed to indicate their agreement inter alia with “Following an unhealthy lifestyle indicates bad manners”. The items formed a reliable scale (a=.75).
Disgust. Disgust was measured with eleven out of fifteen items of the disgust scale from Ihme and Mitte (2009). The disgust scale was developed to measure individual differences in the sensitivity of disgust. I excluded three items which did not correspond to the workplace nor were applicable to employee relationships and one item based on its extremity. To compute one variable, I utilized the mean of the single scale items. One item evaluated was “I feel disgust towards colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle”. The items formed a reliable scale (a= .92).
Exclusion. Exclusion was measured with six out of eight items of the PEDQ-CV scale from Brondolo, Kelly, Coakley, Gordon, Thompson, and Levy (2005). I excluded two items, based on their incompatibility with employee relationships and with my experimental design. I computed one variable with the mean of the six items. One item evaluated was „Employees with an unhealthy lifestyle are ignored”. The items formed a reliable scale (a=.82).
Discrimination. Discrimination was measured with two out of eight items of the Modern Sexism Scale from Morrison, Morrison, Pope, and Zumbo (1999) and four out of ten items from Kesseler, Mickelson, and Williams (1999). I chose these items based on the compatibility to my experimental design and their likelihood to be present at the workplace. I computed one variable by utilizing the mean of the single scale items. Among others, participants rated items such as
“Colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle often do not receive the opportunity for a good job”. The items formed a reliable scale (a= .87).
Prejudice. Prejudice was measured with eight out of 13 items of the anti-fat attitude scale from Crandall (1994). I excluded five items based on their extremity or incompatibility with employee relations. I computed one variable by taking the mean of the single scale items. I
illustrated employee’s negative attitude towards an unhealthy lifestyle in form of prejudice based on several items such as “I dislike colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle”. The items formed a reliable scale (a=.87).
Categorization. Categorization was measured with the IOS scale (Smith, Coats, and Walling, 1999) as well as four self-developed items based on established research. I computed one variable by taking the mean of the single scale items. Among others, the applicants were asked to state their agreement with “Colleagues with a healthy lifestyle work well with colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle” (recoded). The IOS scale and the four items formed a reliable scale (a= .74).
RESULTS Preliminary Analysis
As normally distributed variables are a pre-requirement for further analysis, kurtosis and skewness were tested. To disclose whether the variables are normally distributed, a Shapiro-Wilk test was realized. The results can be found in Table 1. Fortunately, all values of skewness are acceptable according to the rule of thumb (-1 < x < 1). There is no evidence, when looking at the significance levels, to conclude that any variable is normally distributed (p < 0.05) besides Moralization. For Moralization, the significance level implies the possibility of a normal distribution. However, the level of skewness is negative and unequal zero, suggesting that the data has a short-left tail with more data points on the left side of the mean. The level of kurtosis is medium and negative. According to the rule of thumb, Moralization’s distribution is flatter than a normal distribution. In case of Discrimination and Prejudice, there are very high levels of
skewness and kurtosis. A high level of skewness symbolizes that the data is not normally distributed but has a long right tail, meaning more data points are concentrated to the right of its
mean. The level of kurtosis for both variables symbolizes a platykurtic (x < 3), confirming deviation of a normal distribution to a flatter distribution. For Exclusion, the skewness level suggests a medium long right tail and the kurtosis level a flat distribution of data. For
Categorization, the skewness level also depicts a long-right tail with more data concentrated on the right of the mean. The kurtosis level indicates a flat distribution. For Disgust the skewness is on a medium level and the level of kurtosis is medium and negative. The data is positive skewed with more data points on the right side of the mean. The distribution of the data is also defined as platykurtic. Moreover, the skewness for Perceived responsibility for health is negative and on a low level, implying more data points on the left side of the mean. The kurtosis level also
supported a distinction to the normal distribution. Given that the assumption of normality is violated, I utilized standardized variables (E(x) = 0, Var(x) = 1) for all analyses reported below in order to ensure comparability of different distributed variables.
TABLE 1
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality
Skewness Kurtosis Degree of freedom Significance
1. Moralization -.06 -.14 189 .06
2. Disgust .63 -.26 189 0
3. Exclusion .50 .12 189 0
4. Discrimination .89 1.06 189 0
5. Prejudice .92 1.70 189 0
6. Categorization .44 .08 189 0
7. Perceived responsibility for health1
-.18 1 74 0
Note.N=190, 1N=74.
Within the computed Discrimination scale, one outlier was detected using the interquartile range rule of 3. The outlier was characterized by an extreme high value of expressed
discrimination but not deleted because it was an allowable answer, which was underpinned by a further comment of the participant. She stated to be strongly harmed by passive smoking.
Experiencing great harm explains her strong reluctance towards unhealthy colleagues. According to the rule of thumb, the Cook’s distance (DDiskriminierung= .01, SD= .01) also confirmed its
entitlement. Therefore, the outlier should be included in the analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations of the variables of the conceptual model and zero-order correlations between the study variables. Moralization correlates significantly and positively with Exclusion, Discrimination, Prejudice, and Categorization. If Moralization increases, the evaluated dependent variables also increase. As expected,
moralization of health enhances negative employee relations. Moreover, the positive correlation of Moralization with Disgust is highly significant. If moralization of health rises, disgust
increases. Moralization of health raises the feeling disgust towards unhealthy colleagues. The same applies for all correlations between Disgust and the evaluated employee relations. Disgust correlates significantly and positively with Exclusion, with Discrimination, with Prejudice, and with Categorization. Thus, if disgust increases, exclusion, discrimination, prejudice, and
categorization increase. These findings are compatible with the theory. Feeling disgusted towards a colleague implies the wish of having no contact with that person which explains the negative relations between disgust and employee relations. Responsibility for health positively and significantly correlates with Moralization and with Categorization, indicating that moralization of health as well as categorization of colleagues increase, when the responsibility for health is
perceived as individual responsibility. The correlation with Disgust is marginal significant. Still, disgust increases, when responsibility for health is perceived as individual responsibility. Being held accountable for an unhealthy lifestyle provokes disgust. The correlations between Perceived responsibility for health and Exclusion, Discrimination, and Prejudice are positive but non- significant. This is compatible with the hypothesis which predicts an indirect effect through moralization of health and disgust on the dependent variables. Additionally, the correlations of employee relations themselves are depicted in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Pearson’s zero-order correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Moralization 3.07 .83 1
2. Disgust 1.96 .69 .55*** 1
3. Exclusion 2 .68 .31*** .49*** 1
4. Discrimination 2.04 .72 .32*** .52*** .67*** 1
5. Prejudice 2.05 .73 .40*** .59*** .50*** .61*** 1
6. Categorization 2.12 .69 .32*** .42*** .51*** .47*** .51*** 1 7. Perceived
responsibility for health2
2.73 .83 .25* .20† .12 .16 .15 .24* 1
Note. †p< .10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, N=190, 2N=74.
Analytical Strategy
To test the hypotheses, I applied the statistical software SPSS. The experimental condition was coded (1 = individual responsibility, -1 organizational responsibility, 0 = control) and its effectiveness was tested via manipulation check. Unfortunately, an Anova did not reveal any significant difference between the three experimental conditions. After presenting the individual responsibility scenario to approximately one third of the participants, they stated employees’
responsibility for their own lifestyle merely slightly higher (M = 3.73, SD = 1.01) than the participants of the organizational responsibility scenario (M = 3.57, SD = 0.97) or the control scenario (M = 3.52, SD = 1.12). Moreover, participants within the control group stated employers’ responsibility highest (M = 3.07, SD = 1.12) in comparison to the individual responsibility (M = 2.81, SD = 1.08) and organizational responsibility (M = 2.95, SD = 1.18) group. Thus, the manipulation must be considered unsuccessful. Further explanations and deliberations as to why the manipulation failed are presented in the discussion. In order to nevertheless test my conceptual model, I used the variable Perceived responsibility for health as independent variable. It reflects participants’ opinion about who should be held responsible for employees’ health. A Sequential Mediation Analysis was performed.
Hypotheses Testing
In order to test my hypotheses that perceived individual responsibility for health affects employees’ relationships at the workplace though moralization of health and disgust, I conducted a Sequential Mediation Analysis (Hayes, 2014; Process model 6). Table 3 depicts the mediator model, the dependent variable model (direct effects), and the indirect effects. Overall, the more a participant perceived health to be an individual’s responsibility, the more this participant sees health as a moral issue. Further, the more health is moralized, the more disgusted participants feel
towards unhealthy colleagues. Finally, the more disgusted they feel, the more they exclude, discriminate against, are prejudiced towards, and categorize unhealthy colleagues.
The analysis revealed that the direct effects of perceived responsibility for health on exclusion, discrimination, prejudice, and categorization are non-significant. However, for all four dependent variables, the indirect effects through moralization of health and disgust were
significant, see Table 3 and Figure 2-5. Because the direct effects of perceived responsibility for health on exclusion, on discrimination, on prejudice, and on categorization are closer to zero than the total effects on exclusion (b = .07, SE = .07, LLCI = -.217, ULCI = .070), on discrimination (b
= .11, SE = .08, LLCI = -.260, ULCI = .046), on prejudice (b = .09, SE = .07, LLCI = -.242, ULCI
= .060), and on categorization (b = .16, SE = .08, LLCI = .008, ULCI = .315) and because they are non-significant, it can be concluded that moralization of health and disgust fully mediate the association between perceived responsibility for health and all dependent variables. Based on the fact that the non - significant direct effects are lower than the total effects, the sequential
mediation fully substitutes the direct effects. Moreover, the indirect effects through merely one mediator - moralization of health or disgust - are non-significant. Overall, perceived
responsibility for health explained 6% of the variance in moralization. Furthermore, the mediation model illustrates the positive and significant effect of moralization of health on disgust. If participants saw employees as responsible for their unhealthy lifestyle, the process of moralization occurred and enhanced disgust. The negative portents in Table 3 are due to phrasing of the item Perceived responsibility for health (see Appendix A). Perceived responsibility for health and moralization of health explained 34% of the variance in disgust. The indirect effect of perceived responsibility for health as independent variable on exclusion was significant. Without moralization of health and disgust in the model, perceived responsibility for health explained
only 1% of the variance in exclusion. The model including moralization of health and disgust explained 26% of the variance in exclusion.
FIGURE 2
A sequential mediation model of the effect of perceived responsibility for health on exclusion of colleagues through moralization of health and disgust
Note. †p< .10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, N=74.
Moreover, a significant indirect effect on discrimination was revealed. In the model without moralization of health and disgust, perceived responsibility for health explained 3% of the variance in discrimination. Including both mediators, the model explained 25% of the variance in discrimination.
FIGURE 3
A sequential mediation model of the effect of perceived responsibility for health on discrimination against colleagues through moralization of health and disgust
Note. †p< .10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, N=74.
Furthermore, the results illustrate a significant indirect effect on prejudice. The sequential mediation model explained 36% of the variance in prejudice, whereas the model without
mediators solely explained 2% of the variance in prejudice.
FIGURE 4
A sequential mediation model of the effect of perceived responsibility for health on prejudice against colleagues through moralization of health and disgust
Note. †p< .10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, N=74.
Additionally, the indirect effect on categorization was significant. In the model without moralization of health and disgust, perceived responsibility for health explained 6% of the variance in categorization. The sequential mediation model explained 16% of the variance in categorization.
FIGURE 5
A sequential mediation model of the effect of perceived responsibility for health on categorization of colleagues through moralization of health and disgust
Note. †p< .10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, N=74.
Thus, moralization of health and disgust explained substantial variance over and above the direct effect. Therefore, the results support the prediction that moralization of health and disgust mediate the effect of perceived responsibility for health on employee relations and my second hypothesis can be supported.
Summarizing, while the manipulation did not have the expected effect, the hypothesized process was supported using an alternative indicator of perceived responsibility for health. The more a participant held the employer responsible for employee-health the less moralization of health occurred. The more a participant held employees responsible for employee-health the more moralization of health occurred. Concerning the first hypothesis, I focused on the dependent
variable model which demonstrates the direct effects of perceived health responsibility on employee relations, Table 3. With respect to perceived responsibility for health as independent variable, the direct effects on exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudice against, and categorization of colleagues were positive but non-significant. While the mediation analyses support the hypotheses, no evidence for a causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variables can be inferred due to the failed manipulation. However, based on the survey analyses approach, I can conclude that perceived responsibility for health affects employees’ relationships at the workplace through moralization of health and disgust.
TABLE 3
Regression results for the indirect effects with exclusion, discrimination, prejudice, and categorization as dependent variable, perceived responsibility for health as independent variable, and moralization of health and disgust as sequential mediators.
(DV = Moralization) (R2 = .06)
Predictor b SE t
Perceived responsibility for health
-.24 .11 -2.17*
(DV = Disgust) (R2 = .34)
Predictor b SE t
Moralization .54 .10 5.63***
Perceived responsibility for health
-.05 .09 -.57
Mediator Model (DV = Exclusion) (DV = Discrimination) (DV= Prejudice) (DV= Categorization)
(R2 = .26) (R2 = .25) (R2 = .36) (R2 = .16)
Predictor b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Moralization -.02 .08 -.29 -.02 .09 -.24 .03 .08 .33 .01 .10 .12
Disgust .35 .08 4.13*** .36 .09 3.91*** .40 .08 4.87*** .23 .10 2.35*
Perceived responsibility for health
-.02 .07 -.25 -.05 .07 -.67 -.01 .06 -.23 -.12 .07 -1.53
Dependent Variable Model
(DV = Exclusion) (R² = .01)
(DV = Discrimination) (R² = .03)
(DV = Prejudice) (R² = .02)
(DV = Categorization) (R² =.06)
Predictor b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Perceived responsibility
for health -.02 .07 -.25 -.05 .07 -.67 -.01 .06 -.23 -.12 .07 -1.53
Indirect effects
(DV = Exclusion) (DV = Discrimination)
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
IV à M1 à DV .01 .02 -.036 .051 .01 .03 -.044 .064
IV à M1 à M2 à DV -.04* .03 -.117 -.011 -.05* .03 -.130 -.010
IV à M2 à DV -.02 .03 -.077 .054 -.02 .03 -.093 .046
(DV = Prejudice) (DV = Categorization)
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI IV à M1 à DV
.
-.01 .02 -.055 .029 -.01 .03 -.051 .059
IV à M1 à M2 à DV -.05* .03 -.125 -.010 -.03* .02 .004 .094
IV à M2 à DV -.02 .04 -.090 .057 -.01 .02 -.020 .073
Note. †p< .10, *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 IV =Responsibility for health, M1 = Moralization of health, M2 = Disgust, DV = Exclusion, Discrimination, Prejudice, Categorization, N = 74.
DISCUSSION Aim of Research
The aim of my study was to answer the guiding research question whether health
programs that highlight individual responsibility for health negatively affect employee relations at the workplace. Specifically, the study focused on the perception of individual vs.
organizational responsibility for employees’ lifestyle and its consequences. Therefore, the study provided insights into employee relations which are influenced by the perception of the person responsible for employee-health through moralization of health and disgust. Further, the purpose of my study was to evaluate health programs and to reveal possibly negative consequences of their implementation.
Findings
The findings of my study are discussed and interpreted here. Generally, the structural modeling of the experiment focused on individual perceptions of colleagues’ unhealthy lifestyles and its consequences. Unfortunately, the manipulation was unsuccessful. I expected the
participants reading the individual responsibility scenario to indicate moralization, disgust, exclusion, discrimination, prejudice, and categorization highest and participants reading the organizational responsibility scenario to indicate them lowest. In an attempt to increase participants’ assessment of concern for the distinction of responsibility for health between individual responsibility and organizational responsibility, I provided the participants with
different statements. These were concerned with the implementation of a new health program and the person responsible for employees’ health. The manipulation was likely subverted by the fact that participants failed to make a distinction between employees’ responsibility and
organizational responsibility. They voiced their reluctance against colleagues with an unhealthy
lifestyle independent of the indicated person responsible and therefore independent of the
statements within the manipulation. It is possible that participants did not base their reluctance on the experimental design, but voiced their opinion independent of the displayed scenario. This might reflect general antipathies against colleagues with unhealthy lifestyles. The failure of a manipulation check is a common problem in research studying issues which might cause
defensiveness (Gausel & Leach, 2011), such as my experiment did. Prior research has solved this problem by employing a survey approach, so did I.
Nevertheless, I revealed significant indirect effects of perceived individual responsibility for health on employees’ relationships at work through moralization of health and disgust. By utilizing the variable Perceived responsibility for health as independent variable, my research disclosed the process of moralization of health as consequence of perceiving one’s health as individual responsibility. The more participants perceived a healthy lifestyle to be under individual control, the more likely moralization was indicated. Thus, the prior preference of living a healthy life transformed into a moral value. Moreover, the suffering patient and an intentional agent seem to be present, which are the two requirements for moralization.
Participants indicating moralization, feel harmed by their colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle.
They themselves seem to take the role of a suffering patient, whereas their unhealthy colleagues seem to take the role of intentional agents. Henceforth, employees utilize the moral lens when cooperating with unhealthy colleagues and judge their behavior quickly and extremely (van Bavel et al., 2012). By utilizing the moral lens, employees perceive an unhealthy lifestyle as violation of the value of living a healthy life and therefore as harmful and punishable.
As mentioned before, being held accountable for an unhealthy lifestyle and being held accountable for increasing colleagues’ work effort reflects harming oneself or others. Perceived harm and the violation of a moralized value provoke disgust (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt,
1999). The perception of risk and harming oneself or others functions as an antecedent of a behavior change (Weinstein, 2000). Thus, employees feeling initially neutral about colleagues, might develop disgust towards colleagues engaged in harmful behavior. This might result in a change of how employees interact. Although colleagues’ interactions might not contain animosity in the way the theory of evolution defines it, disgust is still present. Hence, the term enemy might have altered over time. Now, it might contain competition for certain promotions and benefits or the term might contain additional work when needing to cover colleagues’ work or the term might contain the need to pay higher tax rates. Within Western society, deviations from the optimum of the human body evokes disgust. Due to the scope of the experiment, participants are part of Western society and therefore, should feel disgusted by a deviation from optimum.
Therefore, a deviation from the optimal human body might trigger disgust. Consistent with this, participants’ comments indicated that an unhealthy lifestyle such as smoking, obesity, and perceived uncommon eating behavior (e.g. gluttony) therefore evoked disgust.
Despite moralization and disgust were rated low to moderate within the experiment, they functioned as significant sequential mediators. The low to moderate rated values of moralization and disgust might be explained by a missing indicator for immoral behavior within the Western society (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1992). The models, excluding one mediator are non-significant, supporting the expectations of the need of both sequential mediators. Moralization of health and disgust are both required for uncovering the negative effects of perceived individual
responsibility for health on employee relations.
Finally, employee relations were affected by the previously examined variables and health became the basis for negative relationships at work (Drydakis, 2010). By reference to negative health conditions, colleagues’ relations worsen. If individual responsibility is highlighted, making employees aware of health’s importance by providing health programs affects employee relations
negatively. Exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudice against, and categorization of co- workers increase significantly. Holding an individual directly and individually responsible evokes negative relationships between colleagues and leads to negative behavior towards unhealthy colleagues (Fernet, Gagné & Austin, 2010). This negative relation is strengthened by
moralization and disgust. Consistent with expectations, negative employee relations rise and unhealthy colleagues are less accepted by co-workers. Independent of the existence of an in- or outgroup, less contact with unhealthy colleagues is indicated. Generally, it is important for humans to demonstrate their morality towards others to prove their values. If others’ values differ from one’s own central values, a negative emotional response occurs (Skitka & Mullen, 2006) such as exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudice against, and categorization of colleagues.
Thus, employees express disgust to stabilize their own position within their work team or towards themselves. Perhaps, illness is linked to moral failing (Leichter, 2003) and disgust is expressed in order to show one’s own moral behavior such as having a healthy lifestyle and avoiding
unhealthy colleagues.
Theoretical Implication
Within this study, the investigated impact of perceived responsibility for health on employee relations trough moralization of health and disgust supported prior literature (Rozin, 1999; Rozin, et al. 1997; and Haidt, et al. 1993). I consider finding a way to prevent negative consequences of health moralization to be the main goal of the research on moralization of health. To do this, health moralization and the role of disgust in this context has to be researched further in order to find possibilities to implement a health program without possibly worsen employee relations.
Therefore, I think it is necessary to fully understand the process of moralization and its actuators. By understanding the reasons which trigger moralization, precautions can be revealed which might improve inter personal relations at work. I believe that by conducting the internet based experiment, I contributed to further research. My results might be utilized to build on, because I introduced categorization as another dimension for moralization. For now, it does seem that categorization increases, if responsibility for health is perceived as individual responsibility and health is moralized. Moreover, to see the influences of disgust on the dependencies, further research is important to understand disgust’s reinforcing negative effect on employee
relationships. Although disgust is a feeling which is known since a long period, it has adjusted itself over years and its implication might has also changed (Menninghaus, 2003). Within the experiment, I linked certain behavior to the feeling of disgust to find its manifestation towards the depicted behavior. More knowledge about behavior evoking disgust strongest could increase the awareness of management regarding this behavior and their negative consequences on employee relationships. This might contribute to preventing or diminishing certain behavior at work.
Practical Implication
The results have several practical implications. First, I discuss the implication of the mediation effect. Second, I give a suggestion for avoiding moralization of health, although a healthy lifestyle is perceived as individual responsibility.
First, my results show evidence that the implementation of a health program triggers moralization of health, increases disgust, and enhances negative influences on employee
relations. The initial good intention of strengthening the awareness of health’s importance, may transform into problematic interpersonal relationships. Implications for management which can be drawn from the experiment are to increase awareness of these negative consequences and to
reduce employees’ perception of individual responsibility to reduce exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudice against, and categorization of colleagues. When organizations share health responsibility with their employees, moralization of health should decrease which should reduce the feeling of disgust towards co-workers.
Second, to reduce moralization of health without shared responsibility for employees’
lifestyle between employer and employees, I propose to shed light on the origin of employees’
unhealthy lifestyle. If reasons for immoral behavior are well-known, comprehension for colleagues living an unhealthy lifestyle might increase and the above-mentioned, negative consequences might decrease. In order to do so I suggest considering an adjusted idea by Townend (2009). The author proposed to apply reverse-logic when estimating the overall effect of moralization. Hence, when trying to identify the origin of an unhealthy lifestyle - which a health program is trying to address – it is necessary to investigate the circumstances leading to living an unhealthy lifestyle rather than solely considering an unhealthy lifestyle as a character trait. Thus, instead of judging co-workers engaged in an unhealthy lifestyle, support in changing their lifestyle should be prioritized. Considering this might help preventing negative influences on employee relations bevor they occur.
Limitation and Future Research
Of course, my study is not without its limitations. First, the manipulation needed to be considered unsuccessful based on a failed manipulation check. The failure of a manipulation check is a common problem in research which is concerned with issues which might cause defensiveness (Gausel & Leach 2011). Within my experiment, participants needed to state how strongly they experience disgust, when experiencing co-worker being engaged in an unhealthy lifestyle. Therefore, participants were asked to rank statements, concerned with feeling disgusted
by colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle. The statements were clearly formulated and might have triggered defensive attitudes, especially for participants living an unhealthy lifestyle themselves.
Although the intention of the experiment was not to insult participants, it might has caused defensiveness. Feeling the need to defend oneself might have changed the participants’ answers, which explains the failure of the manipulation check. In order to prevent participants from feeling offended or feeling the need to defend themselves, I propose for further research to either soften the statements within the experiment or to add an explanation for the formulation of the
statements.
Due to the failed manipulation, I utilized Perceived responsibility for health as dependent variable. By applying a survey approach (Gausel & Leach 2011), I ensured the consistency within my research. Nevertheless, the design of the internet based experiment authorized solely 74 participants to state their opinion towards the variable Perceived responsibility for health.
Despite of the sample size, my results are consistent with prior literature. In other words, my findings were supported by established research utilizing larger sample sizes which justifies my quantity of participants.
Although I detected a positive relation of perceived individual responsibility for health on employee relations, I did not detect a direct impact of the implementation of health programs on individual responsibility for health. Hence, I did not disclose whether the implementation of a health program triggers a distinction of responsibility between individual vs. organizational responsibility. Further research is needed to ensure that the implementation of a health program triggers perceiving responsibility for employees’ lifestyle as individual responsibility. It might be interesting to explore the consequences of the implementation of health programs further, to justify and improve their usage.
Moreover, participants did not need to indicate whether they are employed or employing others. A distinction between employers’ and employees’ opinion of health responsibility, might have changed the results, because the general opinion about responsibility for employees’ health might be different for both parties and therefore might influence the process of moralization differently. Employees might consider their own responsibility differently than employers who consider employees’ responsibility. This might encourage future researcher to take the distinction into account.
Conclusion
Based on today’s enhanced technology, human capital mostly determines productivity.
Therefore, the importance of employees’ health has increased in recent years. Thus, organizations implement health programs to increase awareness of health’s importance. However, their
possibly negative consequences should be considered. Before implementing a health program, the firm should ensure that the implementation of a health program will not trigger moralization of health and will not lead to negative consequences for employee relations. However, the results did not reveal that the implementation of a health program necessary triggers holding employees individually responsible for an unhealthy lifestyle. Still, a general positive trend for an increase of exclusion of, discrimination against, prejudice against, and categorization of colleagues with an unhealthy lifestyle was observed when the process of moralization of health – as consequence of perceiving one’s health as individual responsibility – occurred and thus replicated prior literature.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R., & Partridge, S. A. 1989. The new vegetarians. New York: Plenum Press
Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. 1989. The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1-37
Blikmans, M. 2016. Health discrimination in the workplace: the negative side effect of company health programs. Working Paper, University of Groningen, Faculty of behavioral and social sciences
Brondolo, E., Kelly, K. P., Coakley, V., Gordon, T., Thompson, S., & Levy, E. (2005). The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Velidation of a Communitiy Version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (2), 335-365
Crandall, C. S. 1994. Prejudice Against Fat People: Ideology and Self-Interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 882-894
Crandall, C. S., D’Anello, S., Sakalli, N., & Lazarus, E. 2001. An attribution-value model of prejudice: Anti-fat attitudes in six nations. Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, 27(1), 30-37
Drydakis, N. 2010. Health impairments and labour market outcomes. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(5), 457-469
Ellemers, N., & van de Bos, K. 2012. Morality in groups: on the social-regulatory functions of right and wrong. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(12), 878-889
Euratom-Work programme 2014-2015. European Commission (2014)5009. Retrieved:
13.1.2017. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/eur
