Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Rates of employment for people with disability are about half that of people without disability and have changed little in recent decades. One reason for these low workforce participation rates is the negative attitudes held by employers about hiring people with disability. Approaching this problem from a social marketing perspective has the potential to improve employer willingness to hire people with disability. However, there is presently scant information about factors associated with employer hiring decisions to inform the development of social marketing strategies. The present study examines employer beliefs about hiring people with disability such that social marketing campaigns can be created that effectively address the key barriers to hiring.

Focus of the Article

The identification of employer beliefs that predict intention to hire someone with disability.

Research Question

What beliefs held by employers predict their intention to hire people with disability?

Program Design/Approach

This research provides insights that can inform the development of social marketing campaigns that are effective in improving employer attitudes towards hiring people with disability. Ultimately, this is likely to lead to changes in employer hiring behaviour and increase workforce participation rates for people with disability.

Importance to the Social Marketing Field

This research is important because by understanding what employers believe about hiring people with disability, we can develop social marketing strategies that are effective in overcoming barriers to hiring and improving employer willingness to hire people with disability.

Methods

We conducted an online survey with a sample of 1419 Australian employers. The survey questions were based on the framework of the theory of planned behaviour. Linear regression was used to analyse the data. Employer attitudes (derived from behavioural beliefs), subjective norms (derived from normative beliefs) and perceived behavioural control were used as independent variables and intention to hire someone with disability was used as the dependent variable.

Results

The theoretical constructs of behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs were significant predictors of intention to hire. In particular, employers with the highest intention to hire believed that hiring someone with disability would increase productivity, increase the organisation’s skill base, improve workplace culture, and provide greater opportunities for training and mentoring. They also believed that other employees and customers would support their decision to hire someone with disability.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

The present research identifies the specific beliefs held by employers that predict their intention to hire someone with disability. This work could be extended by using market segmentation techniques to identify whether heterogeneity exists among employers. If it does exist, this information could inform the development of customised social marketing strategies that target the specific beliefs held by each segment, and that address the barriers preventing them from hiring people with disability.

Keywords

disability employment employer beliefs social marketing intention to hire

Introduction

Inclusion of people with disability in society has garnered significant attention from a range of disciplines, including rehabilitation counselling (Nevala et al., 2019), special education (Mason-Williams et al., 2020) and social marketing (Makris et al., 2021; Vulevic et al., 2019). There are several reasons for the high level of interest in this topic, including the fact that people with disability represent the largest minority group globally, constituting approximately 16% of the world’s population (World Health Organization & The World Bank, 2011). In addition, there has been a shift away from viewing disability as a medical issue which needs medical treatment (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1976), to a social model of disability which views disability as society’s failure to acknowledge and effectively accommodate the needs and rights of people with disability (Oliver, 2018). This shift in the understanding of disability (Goering, 2015) considers that society as a whole is responsible for addressing the barriers to inclusion of people with disability, including in the labour market (Riddle, 2020).

In Australia, approximately 4.4 million individuals (17% of the population) live with disability (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). Half of this group are of working age (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024). However, the unemployment rate for people with disability is almost two times higher than that for people without disability (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). Employment opportunities for people with disability are not merely an economic consideration. They are integral to the social inclusion, personal well-being and broader community engagement of people with disability (Livermore & Honeycutt, 2015; Sundar et al., 2018).

The inclusion of people with disability in the labour market also offers benefits for employers and the economy (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2021). Benefits for employers include having access to a more diverse talent pool and increased workplace diversity, which leads to higher productivity, lower staff turnover, enhanced corporate image and greater accessibility of the organisation (Lindsay et al., 2018; Schur et al., 2017). Benefits to the broader economy include higher labour force participation across the entire population and reduced government expenditure on welfare and social services (Goodman et al., 2007; Roeske, 2002).

Around the world, many countries have implemented legislation and policies aimed at fostering inclusivity and diversity in workplaces. Examples include the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in Australia (Australian Government, 1992) and Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (U.S Department of Labor, 1990). Despite this, people with disability continue to encounter significant barriers to participation in the labour market, including negative stereotypes and attitudes held by employers (Sundar et al., 2018). Employers can therefore significantly influence the extent to which people with disability can effectively engage in the economy and be included in society (Rivera, 2020). It is important to understand the factors associated with employer hiring decisions so that structural and social changes can be made to overcome the barriers to hiring people with disability.

Social marketing refers to the application of marketing principles and techniques to promote behavioural change and achieve social good (Kotler & Lee, 2008). In the context of disability inclusion, social marketing plays an important role in advocating for and implementing strategies to create a more inclusive society (Guzman et al., 2021). Social marketing strategies can effectively improve life experiences of people with disability by fostering inclusivity across all aspects of society, including in workplaces. Many real-life case studies—from countries such as Portugal, Spain, and Bulgaria—have demonstrated how social marketing can be applied to promote inclusive employment by addressing barriers faced by both employers and people with disability (Canales Ronda et al., 2021).

Taking a social marketing approach involves putting the target audience at the centre of the behaviour change process. Acknowledging that employers are the gatekeepers of the labour market (Berre, 2023), the development of social marketing strategies that aim to increase employment of people with disability need to first identify factors associated with employer hiring decisions and then create campaigns that effectively address the key barriers to hiring (Canales Ronda et al., 2021).

Background, Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The extant literature includes conflicting findings regarding employer attitudes towards hiring people with disability. Some studies report employers as being positive about hiring people with disability because they appreciate the advantages of having a diverse workplace and culture (Bredgaard & Salado-Rasmussen, 2021). However, other studies report negative employer beliefs about the productivity of people with disability in the workplace, which in turn shape their negative attitudes towards hiring applicants with disability (Amir et al., 2009; Burke et al., 2013). Employers have also been found to lack knowledge about different types of disability, and tend to be more comfortable with visible disabilities (such as physical disabilities) than invisible disabilities (such as mental illness or intellectual disabilities) when making hiring decisions (Nagtegaal et al., 2023). The latter is due to the perception that people with intellectual disabilities or mental illnesses can be “unpredictable and dangerous, incompetent, and unable to get along with co-workers” (Shahwan et al., 2022, p. 1262).

Organisational characteristics such as size and sector are factors reported to be associated with employer willingness to hire people with disability (Ikutegbe et al., 2023; Randle & Reis, 2016). Large organisations are often more inclusive than smaller ones because they tend to have a wider range of jobs to match with people with different abilities, they have greater financial capacity to make any reasonable adjustments, and they may be required to publicly report on their hiring practices and workforce diversity (Chan et al., 2021). Small to medium sized organisations may be more hesitant to hire people with disability because they have a limited range of positions available, they have fewer financial resources to provide reasonable adjustments in the workplace, or they may perceive that hiring someone with disability presents an unacceptably high risk of liability (Mahasneh et al., 2023).

A number of experimental studies have found that disclosing disability in a job application reduces the chances of being interviewed and hired. For example, Ameri et al. (2017) submitted over 6000 fictional job applications for desk based accounting positions, the performance of which was unlikely to be affected by disability. One third of the applications disclosed that the applicant had a developmental disorder, one third disclosed that the applicant had a spinal cord injury, and one third did not mention disability. Twenty-six percent fewer expressions of interest were received from employers for the applications that disclosed disability, although the type of disability specified made a small difference in terms of employer interest. The authors concluded that employers and government need to do more to improve employment opportunities for people with disability.

Social Marketing and Disability Employment

Addressing the complex barriers to disability employment requires consideration of the different downstream, midstream, upstream and systems approaches to social marketing intervention. Downstream strategies aim to influence individual behaviour, such as employer attitudes and intentions (Moriuchi, 2023). Midstream approaches engage with intermediary groups, including recruitment agencies or professional associations, to shape norms and practices that influence hiring behaviour (Mahasneh et al., 2023; Moriuchi, 2023). At the broader level, upstream efforts target systemic change by influencing policies, institutional structures, and legislation to create supportive environments for inclusion (Canales Ronda et al., 2021). A systems approach recognises all three approaches – upstream, midstream and downstream – as working in conjunction with each other and being interconnected and dynamic (Russell-Bennett et al., 2019). Applying a multi-stream or systems approach aligns with the social model of disability because it supports interventions that extend beyond individual behaviour change to address structural and societal barriers (French & Russell-Bennett, 2015). This multi-layered approach informs the broader application of social marketing concepts to disability inclusion efforts.

There is widespread acknowledgement of the potentially valuable role social marketing can play in increasing employment opportunities for people with disability (Guzman et al., 2021; Makris et al., 2021; Makris & Kapetanaki, 2022; Spotswood et al., 2021). This has resulted in social marketing campaigns being implemented in many countries to promote the inclusion of people with disability in all aspects of society (Canales Ronda et al., 2021; National Disability Services, 2023; Randle & Reis, 2016). There have been recent calls for more interdisciplinary research to narrow the gap between social marketers and public health practitioners, especially for initiatives which use social marketing approaches to address issues related to disability (Makris et al., 2021). This is because public health practitioners tend to view disability through the lens of the medical model of disability, while social marketers tend to view it through the lens of the social model of disability (Makris, 2022; Makris & Kapetanaki, 2022).

Social marketing approaches have also been utilised specifically to address the issue of workplace inclusion for people with disability (Mahasneh et al., 2023). A project commissioned by the European Union focused on establishing clear guidelines to use social marketing approaches in promoting the inclusion of people with disability in workplaces (Canales Ronda et al., 2021). The guidelines included case studies of various social marketing strategies focused on inclusive workplaces, targeting both employers and people with disability. The case studies were found to be effective in improving employer attitudes and changing their hiring behaviour.

Theoretical Framework

The use of theory is essential for creating effective social marketing strategies because theory provides a deeper understanding of behavioural processes (Willmott & Rundle-Thiele, 2022). The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985) is an individual-level theory as it provides a framework to analyse the behaviour of individuals (Canales Ronda et al., 2021). The theory is widely used as a framework for promoting positive individual behaviours (Nnindini & Dankwah, 2023; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021; Singh & Kaur, 2021). It has been demonstrated to be useful for examining employer hiring intentions, including in the context of hiring people with disability (Ang et al., 2015; Fraser et al., 2010; Mahasneh et al., 2023).

The theory of planned behaviour postulates that behavioural intention is the immediate precursor to behaviour, and that intention is influenced by individual attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1985). Attitude is defined as an individual’s beliefs about the outcomes of performing a particular behaviour, and their evaluation of the consequences of each outcome. Subjective norm is defined as an individual’s beliefs about what important others would think about them performing a behaviour, and the extent to which they want to comply with these important others. Perceived behavioural control is defined as the factors considered to facilitate or impede the performance of a behaviour, and the salience of each factor for them personally. The present study investigates employer intention to hire people with disability by posing the following research question: ‘what beliefs held by employers about hiring people with disability predict their intention to hire people with disability?’

Methods

Study Context

The present study was conducted in Australia, where increasing the workforce participation of people with disability is a key government priority (Australian Government, 2021). The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was introduced in Australia in 2013 with the aim of providing increased and customised support for people with disability across all aspects of their lives, including in paid work (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023; Mellifont et al., 2023). A key goal of the NDIS was to enable 30% of NDIS participants of working age to be in involved in meaningful employment by 30 June 2023 (National Disability Insurance Scheme, 2023). However, a recent evaluation of the NDIS revealed that there has been no significant increase in the employment rates of people with disability in the ten years since the scheme’s introduction (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023). The unemployment rate for people with disability remains persistently high, at three times that of the general population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020).

Data Collection

The present study was conducted as part of a larger program of research on the employment of people with disability. A national sample of 1419 employers in Australia completed a 20-min survey in June-July 2023. Participants were recruited through an online research panel which specialises in the recruitment of professional groups, including employers. Participants were provided with information about the study prior to clicking on a link to access the online questionnaire. By clicking the link to begin the survey, participants gave tacit consent to participate in the research. At the end of the survey participants were given the choice to either submit their responses, indicating their continued consent, or withdraw from the study without submitting their responses. The research was approved by Wollongong University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval 2020/274).

Measures

Findings from a qualitative study (Mahasneh et al., 2023) informed the development of quantitative survey measures for the present study. The qualitative study included 30 in-depth interviews with Disability Employment Service Providers (DES), and measures were developed using C-OAR-SE theory (Rossiter, 2002).

Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs

Beliefs emerging from the qualitative study were incorporated into the theoretical construct definitions and development of survey measures. Behavioural beliefs were derived from inquiries into the positive and negative outcomes related to the employment of individuals with disability. Normative beliefs were explored through asking about the perceptions of significant others regarding employers’ decisions to hire individuals with disability. Control beliefs were elicited through inquiries into the facilitators and barriers to the employment of people with disability.

Attitude

The attitude construct comprised seven outcome beliefs about hiring people with disability. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each belief using a bipolar sliding scale labelled ‘completely disagree’ (−50) on the left, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (0) in the middle, and ‘completely agree’ (+50) on the right. Behavioural beliefs were measured through responses to the statement: “If I were to hire someone with disability in the next 12 months, it would…”. The seven outcomes were then presented: increase productivity within my workplace; enhance my organisation’s reputation; improve my organisation’s workplace culture; improve my organisation’s skill base; enable more training and/or mentoring of other employees; attract financial support from the government and contribute to my organisation by acting in a socially responsible way. In addition, participants evaluated the importance of each outcome using a unipolar sliding scale labelled ‘not at all important’ (0) on the left and ‘extremely important’ (+100) on the right.

Subjective Norm

Customers, employees and the community were identified as important others in the context of hiring people with disability. Normative beliefs were measured by asking participants to indicate the extent to which each referent group would think they should hire a person with disability. Responses were captured using a bipolar sliding scale labelled ‘think I should not’ (−50) on the left, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (0) in the middle, and ‘think I should’ (+50) on the right. Motivation to comply was measured by asking participants how much they care what each referent groups thinks they should do. Participants used a unipolar sliding scale to indicate their answers ranging from ‘do not care at all’ (0) on the left to ‘care very much’ (+100) on the right.

Perceived Behavioural Control

Four control factors were identified as barriers or facilitators to hiring someone with disability: the increased risk of liability, the provision of government financial support, whether a person chooses to disclose their disability and if workplace modifications are required. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each factor would make it easier or more difficult to hire someone with disability using a bipolar scale labelled ‘completely disagree’ (−50) on the left, ‘neither easier nor more difficult’ (0) in the centre, and ‘completely agree’ (+50) on the right. Control factor salience was measured by asking participants to indicate the extent to which each control factor affected them individually on a bipolar scale labelled ‘completely disagree’ (−50) on the left, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (0) in the middle and ‘completely agree’ (+50) on the right.

Intention

Intention was measured by asking the participants about the chances they will hire a person with disability in the next 12 months. Participants indicated their intention on a unipolar sliding scale ranging from ‘no chance’ (0) on the left to ‘certain’ (100) on the right.

Background Characteristics

Participants provided details about a range of socio-demographic and workplace characteristics. Socio-demographic characteristics included age, gender, experience interacting with people with disability (a lot, a bit, none), and confidence in interacting with people with disability (very confident, confident, slightly confident, not at all confident). Workplace characteristics included job role (manager, professional, technician or trade worker, community or personal services worker, clerical or administrative worker, sales worker, machinery operator or driver, labourer, other), organisation size (number of employees), sector (for-profit, non-profit, public) and location (postcode).

Data Analysis

Prior to providing the data, the online research panel checked and cleaned the data for speeding and straight-line responses. Following receipt of the data, the research team again checked and cleaned the data for contradictory and nonsensical responses. We also re-coded variables that were reverse coded in the survey. First, we used SPSS to conduct exploratory analysis to ensure that the assumptions of multiple linear regression were met. This included examining the mean, median and standard deviation of key variables. Interrelationships between items within each theoretical construct were also examined, with particular attention to assessing multicollinearity.

Second, we used SAS to perform multiple linear regression analysis to identify predictors of intention at the construct level within the theory of planned behaviour. As suggested by Frost (2019), items within the same theoretical construct were aggregated into composite variables. The dependent variable in the model was behavioural intention, and the remaining constructs of the theory of planned behaviour – behavioural beliefs, evaluation of beliefs, normative beliefs, motivation to comply, control beliefs, and control factor salience – were entered as independent variables. The belief and importance elements of each theoretical construct (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control) were considered individually rather than as interaction variables. This approach is in line with the recommendation of Hankins et al. (2000) who suggests avoiding using expectancy-value variables as interaction terms in multiple linear regression analysis as it can introduce complexity and potential misinterpretation of results. Considering variables separately allows for a better understanding of the predictive strength of each individual construct on behavioural intention (Hankins et al., 2000).

Finally, we used SAS to perform a linear regression analysis using the individual items from the theoretical constructs which were found to be statistically significant predictors of behavioural intention in the previous stage of analysis. The purpose of this sub-analysis was to gain insights into the individual beliefs that predict behavioural intention, because “a detailed examination of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs provides substantive information about a behaviour’s determinants” (Ajzen & Cote, 2008, p. 304). These insights are required to inform the development of social marketing strategies targeting employers that include specific messages that promote the facilitators and reduce the barriers to hiring people with disability.

Findings

Sample Description

Just under half of the 1419 participants were male (47.8%) and just over half (51.7%) were female. In terms of age, the largest group was aged 30–39 (36%), followed by 40–49 (23.5%) and 18–29 (17.7%). The majority had at least some prior experience with people with disability (85.7%), with 29.5% having a lot of experience. Most participants also reported being either confident (46.4%) or very confident (34.5%) interacting with people with disability. In terms of their workplace, the majority of participants were employed in the role of either manager (53.2%) or professional (27.3%), and the remaining were clerical or administrative workers (7.5%) technical or trade workers (4.1%), community or personal services workers (1.4%), or other types of workers (6.6%).

Most participants were from the for-profit (private) sector (72.6%), with 17.1% being from the public (government) sector and 10.2% from the non-profit sector. Participants represented organisations of a range of sizes, including micro (1–4 employees, 6.2%), small (5–19 employees, 22.3%), medium (20–199 employees, 37.0%) and large (200 or more employees, 34.5%). The sample included participants from every Australian state and territory, and while most came from metropolitan areas (82.1%), regional (8.3%), rural (8.9%), and remote (0.8%) areas were also represented.

Exploratory Analysis Results

Figures 1 and 2 display the distribution of scores on scales of zero to 100 and -50 to 50, respectively. The boxplots show the varying degrees of dispersion, with mean and medians centrally located and no skewing in the distribution, indicating that linear regression is an appropriate technique for the analysis of this data.

Figure 1.

Boxplots of constructs evaluated on scale range zero to 100.

Figure 2.

Boxplots of constructs evaluated on scale range −50 to 50.

Construct-Level Predictors of Behavioural Intention

Table 1 shows the results of the multiple linear regression analysis at the construct level. The model accounts for approximately 40% (adjusted R² = 0.388) of the variance in employer intention to hire someone with disability. The adequacy of the model was assessed through the calculation of the Akaike Information Criterion (Sakamoto et al., 1986) and Bayesian Information Criterion (Neath & Cavanaugh, 2012) with values of 11,776 and 11,834, respectively. These criteria confirmed the model’s fit. The intercept, which represents the baseline value of the dependent variable when all predictors are zero, was found to be highly significant (p < .0001).

Table 1.

Construct-Level Predictors of Behavioural Intention.

Parameter	Estimate	Wald 95% confidence limits		p
Intercept	41.6	36.1	47.1	<.0001
Behavioural beliefs	0.44	0.36	0.52	<.0001
Evaluation of beliefs	0.06	−0.02	0.14	0.17
Normative beliefs	0.35	0.28	0.42	<.0001
Motivation to comply	−0.00	−0.06	0.00	0.94
Control beliefs	−0.24	−0.32	−0.16	<.0001
Control factor salience	0.01	−0.05	0.07	0.71

Behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs were all significant predictors of intention to hire someone with disability (p < .0001). However, the evaluation of beliefs (p = .17), motivation to comply (p = .94) and control factor salience (p = .71) constructs were not statistically significant predictors of intention (p > .0001).

Item-Level Predictors of Behavioural Intention

Multiple linear regression was conducted to determine the predictive strength of individual behavioural, normative, and control beliefs on employer intention to hire people with disability. Results of the regression analysis are provided at Table 2.

Table 2.

Item-Level Predictors of Behavioural Intention.

	Belief items	R-squared	Intercept
Behavioural beliefs	Increase productivity within my workplace	0.29	51.5
	Enhance my organisation’s reputation	0.17	48.0
	Improve my organisation’s workplace culture	0.22	47.2
	Improve my organisation’s skill base	0.27	49.3
	Enable more training and/or mentoring of other employees	0.21	50.09
	Attract financial support from the government	0.087	52.2
	Contribute to my organisation by acting in a socially responsible way	0.17	46.6
Normative beliefs	My organisation’s customers and/or clients	0.26	49.0
	The other employees that work for my organisation	0.28	48.7
	Members of my local community	0.16	47.3
Control beliefs	Increased risk of liability in the workplace	0.18	58.9
	Disability disclosure prior to hiring	0.13	49.9
	Government provides financial support	0.10	49.8
	Required workplace modification	0.16	53.9

The bold results are to highlight the higher R-squared values that we selected for the model.

All belief items shown in Table 2 are statistically significant predictors of intention to hire someone with disability (p < .0001). A higher R-squared value indicates a better fit of the model to the data and greater predictive power.

We applied the principle of parsimony, which prioritises simplicity and effectiveness in model selection. This principle suggests choosing the simplest explanation or model that adequately explains the phenomenon (Kuhn, 1997). Consequently, the six belief items with the highest R-squared value (those with R² > 0.2) are indicated in bold font in Table 2. Among these, four are behavioural beliefs: that hiring someone with disability will increase workplace productivity (R² = 0.29), improve the organisation’s skill base (R² = 0.28), enhance the organisation’s workplace culture (R² = 0.22), and enable more training and mentoring opportunities for other employees (R² = 0.21). Within the category of behavioural beliefs, these four items are the strongest predictors out of the total of seven belief items assessed.

In terms of normative beliefs, the strongest predictors were the beliefs that other employees (R² = 0.28) and customers and/or clients thought they should hire someone with disability (R² = 0.26). Generally speaking, control beliefs exhibited lower R-squared values, indicating that they have lower predictive strength of employer intention to hire people with disability in comparison to employer behavioural and normative beliefs.

Discussion and Conclusions

The present study provides insights into the specific employer beliefs that predict intention to hire someone with disability. Using the theory of planned behaviour as the theoretical framework, behavioural and normative beliefs emerged as relatively strong predictors of intention compared to control beliefs. Theoretically, this raises for discussion the issue of why behavioural and normative beliefs are relatively stronger predictors specifically for the behaviour of hiring people with disability.

It is acknowledged that within the theory of planned behaviour “the relative importance of the three predictors as determinants of intentions can vary from behaviour to behaviour and from population to population” (Ajzen & Cote, 2008, p. 301). It has been hypothesised that the relative importance of attitudes depends on how they are connected to values (Ajzen et al., 2018). For example, international research conducted by Milfont and colleagues (2010) found that people with altruistic values are more likely to have positive attitudes towards environmental issues, and people with self-interest values are more likely to have negative attitudes towards environmental issues. These attitudes were correlated with environmental behaviour (Milfont et al., 2010), demonstrating how “attitudes may be embedded within a network that influence behaviour” (Ajzen et al., 2018, p. 223). Campaigns that have successfully reinforced such behaviours typically do so by emphasising the alignment between the individual’s values and the desired actions (Tonglet et al., 2004; Vicente & Reis, 2008). It could be argued that hiring someone with disability is an equity issue, which is likely to be linked to personal values regarding issues such as fairness, diversity and inclusion. This link to personal values may explain why behavioural beliefs, which inform attitudes, are relatively stronger predictors of intention for the behaviour of hiring someone with disability.

In relation to normative beliefs, prior research finds this construct to be a stronger predictor of intention for behaviours that occur in social contexts (Cao et al., 2020): “when a social identity defines the self, group norms guide behaviour” (Ajzen et al., 2018, p. 222). Workplaces, where hiring decisions are made, are considered social contexts because other people within that workplace are (or will be) aware of the hiring decisions employers make. It is likely that employers do consider the views of other employees and other factors like organisational culture when making hiring decisions (Bonaccio, 2020), which could explain why normative beliefs emerged as a relatively strong predictor of intention to hire someone with disability.

The finding that perceived behavioural control is a relatively weak predictor of behavioural intention is supported by prior studies of employer intentions to hire people with disability (e.g. Araten-Bergman, 2016; McDonnall & Lund, 2019). According to McDonnall and Lund (2019), perceived behavioural control is a weaker predictor of employer intention because employers typically operate within established legal frameworks that mandate equal employment opportunities. Employers are likely to be familiar with their legal obligations within the workplace and feel that, within that context, they do have the power to choose who they employ. When employers perceive that they do have control over who they hire, other factors may become more influential in their hiring decisions, such as behavioural and normative beliefs.

Practically, findings of this study are encouraging because they highlight the importance of employer beliefs and mindsets when making decisions about hiring people with disability, which is something social marketers can potentially influence. Unlike structural factors such as government financial support, which may require upstream social marketing approaches, employer beliefs and perceptions can be more adaptable and potentially receptive to interventions through targeted social marketing campaigns.

The four behavioural beliefs that most strongly predict intention to hire are that hiring someone with disability would increase productivity within the workplace, improve the organisation’s skill base, improve workplace culture, and enable more training and mentoring of other employees. These beliefs reflect tangible benefits that are commercially valuable from an organisational perspective. Other reputational benefits, such as being seen to be socially responsible or improving the organisation’s reputation, were weaker predictors of intention to hire. This suggests that believing there would be reputational benefits alone is not enough to convince employers to hire someone with disability. They also need to genuinely believe that their organisation will reap tangible benefits from having employees with diverse backgrounds, including disability.

Therefore, the focus of social marketing strategies should be to educate employers about the practical benefits of including employees with disability in their organisation, such as improving workplace productivity, improving organisational culture and expanding the organisation’s skill base. This is particularly important because prior research has shown that many employers are unaware of these benefits (Meltzer et al., 2020), making educational approaches (Mahasneh et al., 2023) important in raising awareness about the practical benefits of hiring people with disability. While employers may believe there are reputational or corporate social responsibility benefits associated with hiring people with disability (The International Labour Organization, 2016) these beliefs are less likely to result in actually hiring and so should not take highest priority in social marketing messaging.

These findings align with and build upon previous social marketing studies focused on disability inclusion. For instance, Makris and Kapetanaki (2022) emphasised the importance of focusing on practical workplace benefits when designing interventions to improve the inclusion of people with intellectual disability—an approach consistent with the present study’s finding that beliefs about productivity, skill development, and workplace culture are strong predictors of hiring intention. Guzman et al. (2021) advocated for audience-led strategies that reflect the target group’s perceived value of inclusion, which aligns with our findings that highlight the importance of emphasising the practical organisational benefits employers associate with hiring people with disability. Mahasneh et al. (2023) also highlighted the need to challenge employers’ misconceptions about hiring people with disability through evidence-based educational approaches, which supports the suggestion that belief-focused interventions should be prioritised.

The two normative beliefs that most strongly predicted employer intention to hire were that other employees and customers and/or clients thought they should hire someone with disability. The belief that the local community thought they should hire someone with disability was a weaker predictor of intention. This suggests that stakeholders within the employers’ immediate sphere of influence, such as people within the organisation (other employees) or people who have direct contact with the organisations (customers or clients) are relatively more influential when it comes to employer hiring decisions. This is compared to others within the broader social context (community members) who might be seen by employers as more peripheral stakeholders when it comes to hiring decisions.

Testimonials from employers who have first-hand experience of the benefits of hiring people with disability may provide persuasive examples of how disability inclusion has improved their workplace and led to greater organisational success. Similarly, testimonials from colleagues of employees with disability could communicate their positive work experiences and organisational culture. These testimonials may address any perceptions employers have about other employees reacting negatively to working with someone with disability and be motivating for employers who value employee satisfaction and retention. Highlighting the positive reactions of customers to inclusive hiring practices may also further reinforce the benefits of disability inclusion and may overcome the perception that customers may respond negatively to interacting with a staff member with disability. The incorporation of storytelling into social marketing campaigns, from organisations and their stakeholders who have positive experiences with people with disability, is likely to effectively engage employers (Nycyk & Mack, 2019).

Limitations and Future Research

The present study focuses on employers in Australia and the predictors of intention to hire people with disability at the aggregate level. While this approach provides valuable insights regarding the overall predictive beliefs among employers generally, it does not account for differences between sub-groups of employers, for example across different industries, sectors, locations and organisations. Future research could explore heterogeneity among employers in terms of their beliefs, by utilising segmentation methodology which accounts for differences between sub-groups of employers. This would enable even more targeted social marketing strategies that are customised to address the particular barriers to hiring for different groups of employers. It should be acknowledged that the present study examined employer intentions to hire people with disability, considering the notion of disability as a generic construct. Future research could explore how employer intentions to hire vary according to specific aspects of disability, such as disability type or severity.

The present study utilised self-report data gathered through an online survey and participants were anonymous. However, it is possible that the nature of the subject (hiring people with disability) may potentially be affected by social desirability bias. This bias may have led participants to provide responses they deemed socially acceptable, rather than reflecting their true beliefs or intentions.

Our research was conducted with employers in Australia, so findings may not be generalisable to other countries with different norms and labour market structures. Furthermore, the study employs behavioural intention as the dependent variable instead of measuring actual behaviour. We acknowledge that there may be a temporal gap between the dependent variable of hiring intention and actual hiring behaviour. However, behavioural intention is considered the immediate precursor to actual behaviour (Ajzen, 1985), and it therefore serves as a proxy measure of behaviour. Finally, the present study investigates the individual beliefs that predict employer intention to hire people with disability. Future studies could expand this to consider the broader organisational and environmental factors associated with workforce participation rates for people with disability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, (The linkage project scheme (LP 170100690)).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Rola Mahasneh

Author Biographies

Rola Mahasneh has recently obtained her PhD in Social Marketing from the University of Wollongong, where her research focused on enhancing employers’ willingness to hire people with disabilities through social marketing strategies. Rola works at the intersection of research and practice, with a focus on advancing diversity and inclusion through evidence-based behaviour change. She has served as a facilitator and researcher with international organisations, including the United Nations, contributing to projects that support inclusive policy and social impact. One of her publications was recognised as a top-downloaded article, and she received honorary recognition from the Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Wollongong for her research impact.

Melanie Randle is a Professor of Marketing in the School of Business at the University of Wollongong. Melanie’s research focuses on applying marketing techniques to change attitudes and behaviours in ways that improve outcomes for individuals and society as a whole. Her research focuses primarily on vulnerable populations and has included studies which aim to increase numbers of volunteers, attract more foster carers, achieve greater inclusion of people with disabilities, encourage pro-environmental behaviours, and reduce gambling harm. She has led large-scale Australian Research Council projects funded through the Discovery and Linkage schemes and has long-term industry collaborations in the non-profit and government sectors.

Rob Gordon is associate Professor Gordon has over 35 years’ experience in conducting research across the Australian health, community, and aged care sectors. Until April 2024, he was employed as Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Australian Health Services Research Institute (AHSRI), a major health services research institute of the University of Wollongong. In this role, he completed more than 200 research studies, including more than ten large national evaluations of new interventions and models of care. The majority of these research studies have made a demonstrably significant impact on policy, programs and service delivery systems. For example, in 2018, he was a lead investigator in the development of the Australian National Aged Care Classification which has subsequently adopted as the national funding instrument for the Australian residential aged care sector.

Dr Jennifer Algie Senior Lecturer and Deputy Discipline Lead (Marketing) School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Wollongong (UoW), Australia with 25 years’ experience of teaching and researching in Marketing. Dr Algie is a behaviour change expert in social marketing, aiming to produce positive societal outcomes by applying marketing processes and techniques to topics ranging from promoting inclusivity, prioritising safety, preventing harm in communities, enabling prosocial and environmental consumer choices, and encouraging sun-safe practices. She has published in Psychology and Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Traffic Injury Prevention, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Social Marketing, and the Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. Jennifer thrives on working in diverse teams and was a recipient of UoW’s Vice-Chancellor's Awards for Interdisciplinary Research in 2020.

Alanna Connolly has over a decade of experience in statistical analysis and research, developed through her roles as a Statistician/Data Manager and Research Fellow at the University of Wollongong. Her work has largely focused on palliative care, where she specialised in the analysis and reporting of PCOC data. She also played a key role in establishing the Palliative Aged Care Outcomes Program (PACOP), an initiative dedicated to improving outcomes for people in aged care. During her time at the university, Alanna contributed to numerous publications, conference presentations, reports, and technical documents. Alanna now works at ISLHD as a Senior Performance Analyst, where she continues to refine and expand her analytical expertise.

References

Ajzen

(1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl

Beckmann

(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ajzen

Cote

N. G.

(2008). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In Crano

W. D.

Prislin

(Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 289–305). Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Ajzen

Fishbein

Lohmann

Albarracín

(2018). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In Crano

W. D.

Prislin

(Eds.), The handbook of attitudes, volume 1: Basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 173–221). Psychology Press.

Ameri

Schur

Adya

Bentley

F. S.

McKay

Kruse

(2017). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917717474

Amir

Beard

Taylor

C. T.

Klumpp

Elias

Burns

Chen

(2009). Attention training in individuals with generalized social phobia: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(5), 961–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016685

Ang

M. C.

Ramayah

Amin

(2015). A theory of planned behavior perspective on hiring Malaysians with disabilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(3), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2014-0012

Araten-Bergman

(2016). Managers’ hiring intentions and the actual hiring of qualified workers with disabilities. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1510–1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128466

Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2020). Disability and the labour force. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/disability-and-labour-force

Australian Government . (1992). Disability discrimination act 1992. Retrieved May 8 from. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00125

10.

Australian Government . (2021). Australia’s disability strategy 2021-2031. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://www.disabilitygateway.gov.au/ads

11.

Australian Government Productivity Commission . (2023). Report on government services 2023. Australian Government. https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2023/community-services/services-for-people-with-disability

12.

Australian Human Rights Commission . (2021). 6 Economic and social benefits of employing people with disability. Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/6-economic-and-social-benefits-employing-people-disability#fnB19

13.

Australian Human Rights Commission . (2024). Disability and employment in Australia. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://includeability.gov.au/resources-employers/disability-and-employment-australia#:∼:text=There/are/4.4/million/people,of/adults/without/a/disability

14.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare . (2022). People with disability in Australia. AIHW. Retrieved June 4 2024 from. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia

15.

Berre

(2023). Exploring disability disadvantage in hiring: A factorial survey among Norwegian employers. Work, Employment & Society, 38(4), Article 09500170231175776. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231175776

16.

Bonaccio

Connelly

C. E.

Gellatly

I. R.

Jetha

Martin Ginis

K. A.

(2020). The participation of people with disabilities in the workplace across the employment cycle: Employer concerns and research evidence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9602-5

17.

Bredgaard

Salado-Rasmussen

(2021). Attitudes and behaviour of employers to recruiting persons with disabilities. Alter, 15(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2020.04.004

18.

Burke

Bezyak

Fraser

R. T.

Pete

Ditchman

Chan

(2013). Employers’ attitudes towards hiring and retaining people with disabilities: A review of the literature. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 19(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrc.2013.2

19.

Canales Ronda

Hernández Fernández

Küster Boluda

Vila López

Bernardo

Leitão

Lopes

Marto

Oliveira

Goranova

(2021). Sim Handbook-A practical guide for applying social marketing in the disability sector. Russell House Publishing (Lyme Regis). https://www.social-inclusion-marketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DEF-IO3-Book_V3.pdf.

20.

Cao

Liu

(2020). Do national cultures matter in the containment of COVID-19? International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 40(9/10), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-07-2020-0334

21.

Chan

Tansey

T. N.

Iwanaga

Bezyak

Wehman

Phillips

B. N.

Strauser

D. R.

Anderson

(2021). Company characteristics, disability inclusion practices, and employment of people with disabilities in the post COVID-19 job economy: A cross sectional survey study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 31(3), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09941-8

22.

Fraser

Johnson

Hebert

Ajzen

Copeland

Brown

Chan

(2010). Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: Preliminary findings. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 420–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9220-1

23.

French

Russell-Bennett

(2015). A hierarchical model of social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing, 5(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-06-2014-0042

24.

Frost

(2019). Introduction to statistics. Statistics By Jim Publishing.

25.

Goering

(2015). Rethinking disability: The social model of disability and chronic disease. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 8(2), 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9273-z

26.

Goodman Nanette

Stapleton

David C.

(2007). (In press). Federal Program Expenditures for Working-Age People With Disabilitie. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073070180020301

27.

Guzman

J. M. G.

Hernandez-Fernandez

Canales-Ronda

(2021). Bringing social marketing closer to the disability field. Journal of Social Marketing, 11(4), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-06-2020-0105

28.

Hankins

French

Horne

(2000). Statistical guidelines for studies of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health, 15(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400297

29.

Ikutegbe

Randle

Sheridan

Gordon

Dolnicar

(2023). Successful employment outcomes for people with disabilities: A proposed conceptual model. Consulting Psychology Journal, 75(3), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000222

30.

Kotler

Lee

(2008). Social marketing: Influencing behaviors for good. Sage.

31.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1997). The structure of scientific revolutions (Vol. 962). University of Chicago Press.

32.

Lindsay

Cagliostro

Albarico

Mortaji

Karon

(2018). A systematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 28(4), 634–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9756-z

33.

Livermore

G. A.

Honeycutt

T. C.

(2015). Employment and economic well-being of people with and without disabilities before and after the great recession. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(2), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207315583875

34.

Mahasneh

Randle

Gordon

Algie

Dolnicar

(2023). Increasing employer willingness to hire people with disability: The perspective of disability employment service providers. Journal of Social Marketing, 13(3), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-08-2022-0174

35.

Makris

(2022). Using social marketing principles to foster inclusion among people with disabilities. University of South Florida - College of Public Health. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/publichealth/news/using-social-marketing-principles-to-foster-inclu0sion-among-people-with-disabilities/

36.

Makris

Kapetanaki

(2022). Practice-based social marketing to improve well-being for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Marketing Management, 38(11-12), 1178–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2091641

37.

Makris

Khaliq

Perkins

(2021). A scoping review of behavior change interventions to decrease health care disparities for patients with disabilities in a primary care setting: Can social marketing play a role? Social Marketing Quarterly, 27(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500421992135

38.

Mason-Williams

Bettini

Peyton

Harvey

Rosenberg

Sindelar

P. T.

(2020). Rethinking shortages in special education: Making good on the promise of an equal opportunity for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 43(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880352

39.

McDonnall

M. C.

Lund

E. M.

(2019). Employers’ intent to hire people who are blind or visually impaired: A test of the theory of planned behavior. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 63(4), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355219893061

40.

Mellifont

Smith-Merry

Bulkeley

(2023). The employment of people with lived experience of disability in Australian disability services. Social Policy and Administration, 57(5), 642–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12898

41.

Meltzer

Robinson

Fisher

K. R.

(2020). Barriers to finding and maintaining open employment for people with intellectual disability in Australia. Social Policy and Administration, 54(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12523

42.

Milfont

T. L.

Duckitt

Wagner

(2010). A cross-cultural test of the value–attitude–behavior hierarchy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2791–2813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00681.x

43.

Moriuchi

(2023). Bridging social marketing and technology in the disability field: An empirical study on the role of cybernetic avatar and social inclusion. Journal of Social Marketing, 13(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-05-2022-0111

44.

Nagtegaal

de Boer

van Berkel

Derks

Tummers

(2023). Why do employers (fail to) hire people with disabilities? A systematic review of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 33(2), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10076-1

45.

National Disability Insurance Scheme . (2023). Participant employment strategy. NDIS. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/strategies/participant-employment-strategy

46.

National Disability Services . (2023). #ThinkSupport campaign promotes diverse job opportunities in disability sector. NDS. Retrieved May 5 2024 from. https://www.nds.org.au/news/thinksupport-campaign-promotes-diverse-job-opportunities-in-disability-sector

47.

Neath

A. A.

Cavanaugh

J. E.

(2012). The Bayesian information criterion: Background, derivation, and applications. WIREs Computational Statistics, 4(2), 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.199

48.

Nevala

Pehkonen

Teittinen

Vesala

H. T.

Pörtfors

Anttila

(2019). The effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on the employment and functioning of people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 29(4), 773–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09837-2

49.

Nnindini

S. I.

Dankwah

J. B.

(2023). Social marketing: Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict open defecation free behaviour among households in Ghana. Social Marketing Quarterly, 29(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004231186955

50.

Nycyk

Mack

(2019). Using digital storytelling to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness: Real, bold and defined social marketing strategies. Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing, 7(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.69554/qihe4424

51.

Oliver

(2018). Understanding disability: From theory to practice (Vol. 2). Bloomsbury Publishing.

52.

Randle

Reis

(2016). Changing community attitudes toward greater inclusion of people with disabilities: A rapid literature review. NSW Department of Family and Community Services. https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/download?file=375667

53.

Riddle

C. A.

(2020). Why we do not need a ‘stronger’ social model of disability. Disability & Society, 35(9), 1509–1513. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1809349

54.

Rivera

L. A.

(2020). Employer decision making. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054633

55.

Roeske

Hans

(2002) (In press). Discussion paper: Disability and poverty reduction strategies: How to ensure that access of persons with disabilities to decent and productive work is part of the PRSP process. International Labour Organization. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/76515.

56.

Rossiter

(2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6

57.

Rundle-Thiele

Dietrich

Carins

(2021). CBE: A framework to guide the application of marketing to behavior change. Social Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211021643

58.

Russell-Bennett

Fisk

R. P.

Rosenbaum

M. S.

Zainuddin

(2019). Commentary: Transformative service research and social marketing–converging pathways to social change. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(6), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-06-2020-0105

59.

Sakamoto

Ishiguro

Kitagawa

(1986). Akaike information criterion statistics: (Vol. 81) (10.5555), (p. 26853). D. Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478680

60.

Schur

Han

Kim

Ameri

Blanck

Kruse

(2017). Disability at work: A look back and forward. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(4), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9739-5

61.

Shahwan

Yunjue

Satghare

Vaingankar

J. A.

Maniam

Janrius

G. C. M.

Lin

T. W.

Roystonn

Subramaniam

(2022). Employer and co-worker perspectives on hiring and working with people with mental health conditions. Community Mental Health Journal, 58(7), 1252–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00934-2

62.

Singh

Kaur

(2021). Influencing the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior: An approach with modified TPB model. Social Marketing Quarterly, 27(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211013333

63.

Spotswood

Wiltshire

Spear

Makris

(2021). Disrupting social marketing through a practice-oriented approach. RAUSP Management Journal, 56(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-10-2020-0231

64.

Sundar

O’Neill

Houtenville

A. J.

Phillips

K. G.

Keirns

Smith

Katz

E. E.

(2018). Striving to work and overcoming barriers: Employment strategies and successes of people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-170918

65.

The International Labour Organization . (2016). The win-win of disability inclusion. https://www.ilo.org/infostories/stories/employment/the-win-win-of-disability-inclusion#everybody-gains-from-disability-inclusion

66.

Tonglet

Phillips

P. S.

Read

A. D.

(2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001

67.

Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation . (1976). The union of the physically impaired against segregation and the disability alliance discuss fundamental principles of disability: Being a summary of the discussion held on 22nd November, 1975 and containing commentaries from each organisation. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.

68.

U.S Department of Labor . (1990). Americans with disabilities act. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada

69.

Vicente

Reis

(2008). Factors influencing households' participation in recycling. Waste Management & Research: The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 26(2), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07077371

70.

Vulevic

Djordjevic

Castanho

R. A.

Cabezas-Fernández

(2019). Social marketing and their related challenges for the limited access for people living with a disability: A Serbian case study. In Galan-Ladero

M. M.

Alves

H. M.

(Eds.), Case studies on social marketing (pp. 223–235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04843-3_19

71.

Willmott

T. J.

Rundle-Thiele

(2022). Improving theory use in social marketing: The TITE four-step theory application process. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(2), 222–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-05-2021-0117

72.

World Health Organization, & The World Bank . (2011). The world report on disability (WHO/NMH/VIP/11.01). World Heath Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70670/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01_eng.pdf

Predictors of Employers’ Intention to Hire People With Disability

Abstract

Background

Focus of the Article

Research Question

Program Design/Approach

Importance to the Social Marketing Field

Methods

Results

Recommendations for Research and Practice

Keywords

Introduction

Background, Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Social Marketing and Disability Employment

Theoretical Framework

Methods

Study Context

Data Collection

Measures

Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs

Attitude

Subjective Norm

Perceived Behavioural Control

Intention

Background Characteristics

Data Analysis

Findings

Sample Description

Exploratory Analysis Results

Construct-Level Predictors of Behavioural Intention

Item-Level Predictors of Behavioural Intention

Discussion and Conclusions

Limitations and Future Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References