A_AT1 field_NN1 study_NN1 of_IO corporate_JJ employee_NN1 monitoring_NN1 :_: Attitudes_NN2 ,_, absenteeism_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT moderating_JJ influences_NN2 of_IO procedural_JJ justice_NN1 perceptions_NN2 1_MC1 ._. 
Introduction_NN1 Managers_NN2 carry_VV0 special_JJ responsibilities_NN2 for_IF stewardship_NN1 over_II personnel_NN2 and_CC organizational_JJ re-sources_NN2 through_II enforcement_NN1 of_IO company_NN1 policies_NN2 and_CC practices_NN2 ._. 
In_II the_AT execution_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE stewardship_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 may_VM be_VBI involved_JJ in_II the_AT gathering_NN1 of_IO information_NN1 about_II employees_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 their_APPGE performance_NN1 measurements_NN2 compared_VVN to_II their_APPGE objectives_NN2 and_CC other_JJ work-related_JJ activities_NN2 ;_; but_CCB also_RR ,_, increasingly_RR ,_, managers_NN2 are_VBR called_VVN upon_II to_TO gather_VVI information_NN1 about_II employees_NN2 and_CC enforce_VVI organizational_JJ policies_NN2 that_CST include_VV0 various_JJ security_NN1 practices_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 monitoring_VVG access_NN1 to_II vital_JJ corporate_JJ resources_NN2 ._. 
Monitoring_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT physical_JJ or_CC electronic_JJ observation_NN1 of_IO someone_PN1 's_GE activities_NN2 and_CC behavior_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 practices_NN2 are_VBR particularly_RR acute_JJ in_II organizations_NN2 that_CST are_VBR regulated_VVN by_II government_NN1 legislation_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 in_II the_AT healthcare_NN1 industry_NN1 in_II the_AT United_NP1 States_NP1 (_( US_NP1 )_) through_II the_AT Health_NN1 Insurance_NN1 Portability_NN1 and_CC Accountability_NN1 Act_NN1 (_( HIPAA_NP1 )_) or_CC those_DD2 that_CST deliver_VV0 products_NN2 and_CC services_NN2 to_II a_AT1 government_NN1 agency_NN1 or_CC are_VBR regulated_VVN in_II the_AT European_JJ Union_NN1 (_( EU_NP1 )_) or_CC the_AT United_NP1 Kingdom_NP1 (_( UK_NP1 )_) ._. 
Thus_RR in_II most_DAT cases_NN2 ,_, organizations_NN2 must_VM gather_VVI information_NN1 about_II employees_NN2 to_TO identify_VVI and_CC authenticate_VVI them_PPHO2 for_IF access_NN1 control_NN1 ,_, and_CC then_RT monitor_VV0 their_APPGE behavior_NN1 as_CSA they_PPHS2 conduct_VV0 their_APPGE work_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ produces_VVZ a_AT1 large_JJ cache_NN1 of_IO employee-specific_JJ data_NN ._. 
Because_II21 of_II22 the_AT severity_NN1 of_IO the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO security_NN1 breaches_NN2 ,_, as_RG well_RR as_CSA levied_VVN as_CSA punitive_JJ measures_NN2 by_II regulators_NN2 for_IF non-compliance_NN1 ,_, organizations_NN2 are_VBR increasing_VVG their_APPGE technological_JJ monitoring_NN1 practices_NN2 ,_, but_CCB research_NN1 into_II the_AT organizational_JJ impacts_NN2 from_II these_DD2 practices_NN2 is_VBZ lagging_VVG behind_RL ._. 
While_CS a_AT1 significant_JJ amount_NN1 research_NN1 has_VHZ investigated_VVN issues_NN2 related_VVN to_II company_NN1 policy_NN1 compliance_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 contribute_VV0 to_II the_AT literature_NN1 in_II several_DA2 ways_NN2 ._. 
First_MD ,_, we_PPIS2 fill_VV0 a_AT1 gap_NN1 in_II the_AT literature_NN1 by_II studying_VVG the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO forced_JJ compliance_NN1 ,_, and_CC second_NNT1 ,_, while_CS studies_NN2 have_VH0 begun_VVN to_TO assess_VVI the_AT psychosocial_JJ impacts_NN2 on_II people_NN from_II monitoring_NN1 ,_, the_AT findings_NN2 are_VBR mixed_VVN --_NN1 some_DD studies_NN2 indicating_VVG deleterious_JJ effects_NN2 ,_, while_CS others_NN2 often_RR finding_VVG acceptance_NN1 among_II workers_NN2 for_IF such_DA practices_NN2 ._. 
Our_APPGE research_NN1 helps_VVZ to_TO explain_VVI these_DD2 contradictory_JJ findings_NN2 ._. 
Finally_RR ,_, we_PPIS2 addressed_VVD whether_CSW organizational_JJ procedural_JJ justice_NN1 practices_NN2 might_VM offset_VVI some_DD of_IO the_AT negative_JJ effects_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 absenteeism._NNU 1.1_MC ._. 
Monitoring_NN1 :_: the_AT unblinking_JJ eye_NN1 The_AT unlinking_JJ eye_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 reference_NN1 to_II the_AT constant_JJ mon-_JJ itoring_NN1 of_IO physical_JJ or_CC electronic_JJ movements_NN2 and_CC activities_NN2 of_IO people_NN ._. 
In_II most_DAT cases_NN2 people_NN are_VBR aware_JJ of_IO company_NN1 monitoring_NN1 activities_NN2 in_II the_AT US_NP1 ,_, EU_NP1 ,_, and_CC the_AT UK_NP1 However_RR ;_; this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX always_RR the_AT case_NN1 as_CSA was_VBDZ exposed_VVN about_II the_AT covert_JJ monitoring_NN1 of_IO employees_NN2 at_II Deutsche_NP1 Bahn_NP1 and_CC Deutsche_NP1 Telekom_NP1 and_CC other_JJ companies_NN2 ._. 
Post_II the_AT "_" US-9/11_FU attacks_NN2 "_" as_CSA it_PPH1 is_VBZ known_VVN ,_, there_EX are_VBR new_JJ legal_JJ protections_NN2 for_IF corporate_JJ monitoring_NN1 in_II the_AT US_NP1 ,_, UK_NP1 ,_, and_CC EU_NP1 ,_, and_CC the_AT prac-_JJ tices_NN2 have_VH0 continued_VVN to_TO expand_VVI in_RP both_RR range_NN1 and_CC depth_NN1 ._. 
In_II an_AT1 organizational_JJ setting_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ become_VVN common_JJ practice_NN1 for_REX21 instance_REX22 to_TO allow_VVI the_AT electronic_JJ observation_NN1 of_IO web_NN1 surfing_VVG activity_NN1 ,_, monitoring_VVG emails_NN2 ,_, and_CC telephone_NN1 call_NN1 monitoring_NN1 of_IO office_NN1 employees_NN2 (_( e.g._REX "_" for_IF quality_NN1 assurance_NN1 purposes_NN2 "_" )_) ,_, along_II21 with_II22 increasing_JJ use_NN1 of_IO global_JJ positioning_NN1 satellite_NN1 systems_NN2 (_( GPS_NN2 )_) and_CC radio_NN1 frequency_NN1 identification_NN1 (_( RFID_NP1 )_) for_IF tracking_JJ mobile_NN1 workers._NNU 1.2_MC ._. 
Monitoring_NN1 :_: attitudes_NN2 and_CC organizational_JJ behavior_NN1 The_AT growing_JJ pervasiveness_NN1 of_IO the_AT information_NN1 collections_NN2 has_VHZ combined_VVN with_IW increasing_JJ technolog-_JJ ical_JJ sophistication_NN1 ,_, allowing_VVG companies_NN2 to_TO monitor_VVI the_AT actions_NN2 of_IO employees_NN2 more_RGR invasively_RR also_RR ._. 
Software_NN1 that_CST covertly_RR monitors_VVZ computer_NN1 activities_NN2 and_CC monitoring_VVG hardware_NN1 devices_NN2 are_VBR being_VBG fashioned_VVN to_TO blend_VVI into_II the_AT environment_NN1 by_II hid-_NN1 ing_VVG them_PPHO2 in_II pens_NN2 ,_, clocks_NN2 ,_, or_CC bookends_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 may_VM dampen_VVI employee_NN1 monitoring_VVG aware-_JJ ness_NN1 regardless_RR of_IO whether_CSW employers_NN2 notify_VV0 employees_NN2 of_IO such_DA monitoring_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ can_VM create_VVI a_AT1 psychological_JJ double_JJ bind_NN1 on_II employees_NN2 who_PNQS know_VV0 they_PPHS2 are_VBR being_VBG monitored_VVN ,_, but_CCB the_AT unobtrusive-_JJ ness_NN1 of_IO the_AT technology_NN1 may_VM make_VVI them_PPHO2 seem_VVI innocuous_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 creates_VVZ a_AT1 double_JJ bind_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 carries_VVZ the_AT implied_JJ presumption_NN1 that_CST everyone_PN1 is_VBZ "_" potentially_RR guilty_JJ "_" ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, employees_NN2 state_VV0 that_CST maintaining_VVG their_APPGE privacy_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 essential_JJ element_NN1 in_II how_RRQ they_PPHS2 feel_VV0 about_II their_APPGE jobs_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE employers_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 assert_VV0 that_CST monitoring_VVG negatively_RR impacts_NN2 their_APPGE attitudes_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE work-related_JJ behaviors_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 absenteeism._NNU 2_MC ._. 
Theory_NN1 framework_NN1 The_AT escalation_NN1 in_II monitoring_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN sparked_VVN in_RR21 part_RR22 by_II the_AT increasing_JJ focus_NN1 on_II security_NN1 threats_NN2 to_II individuals_NN2 and_CC to_II organizations_NN2 ._. 
Protec-_JJ tion_NN1 motivation_NN1 theory_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN used_VVN to_TO examine_VVI the_AT individual_JJ level_JJ threat_NN1 assess-_NN1 ments_NN2 and_CC behavioral_JJ coping_NN1 responses_NN2 ,_, primarily_RR in_RP regards_VVZ to_II healthcare_NN1 issues_NN2 ._. 
Extending_VVG from_II this_DD1 line_NN1 of_IO research_NN1 ,_, Workman_NP1 ,_, Bommer_NP1 ,_, and_CC Straub_NP1 developed_VVD a_AT1 threat_NN1 control_NN1 model_NN1 (_( TCM_NP1 )_) and_CC tested_VVD it_PPH1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 why_RRQ employees_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS are_VBR aware_JJ of_IO security_NN1 threats_NN2 and_CC the_AT countermeasures_NN2 ,_, often_RR choose_VV0 not_XX to_TO implement_VVI discretionary_JJ security_NN1 protections_NN2 ._. 
Working_VVG from_II this_DD1 previous_JJ research_NN1 ,_, the_AT present_JJ study_NN1 investigates_VVZ how_RRQ those_DD2 factors_NN2 related_VVN to_II mon-_JJ itoring_NN1 of_IO employee_NN1 behaviors._NNU 2.1_MC ._. 
Monitoring_NN1 ,_, attitudes_NN2 and_CC absenteeism_NN1 Organizations_NN2 espouse_VV0 treats_NN2 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO gain_VVI compliance_NN1 with_IW security_NN1 policies_NN2 that_CST include_VV0 having_VHG employees_NN2 give_VVI up_RP personal_JJ information_NN1 and_CC subsequently_RR allow_VV0 monitoring_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 regard_NN1 ,_, the_AT term_NN1 commercial_JJ fear_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN used_VVN in_II reference_NN1 to_II the_AT manipulation_NN1 of_IO strong_JJ emotions_NN2 to_TO neutralize_VVI negative_JJ attitudes_NN2 toward_II something_PN1 undesirable_JJ ._. 
Importantly_RR in_II this_DD1 process_NN1 ,_, employees_NN2 have_VH0 expectations_NN2 that_CST the_AT leadership_NN1 in_II their_APPGE organization_NN1 will_VM treat_VVI them_PPHO2 fairly_RR in_II the_AT process_NN1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 develop_VV0 tacit_JJ expectations_NN2 that_CST the_AT organization_NN1 will_VM act_VVI in_II the_AT best_JJT interest_NN1 of_IO the_AT employees_NN2 while_CS conducting_VVG its_APPGE stewardship_NN1 over_II organizational_JJ resources_NN2 including_II personnel_NN2 --_NN1 the_AT concept_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 of_IO a_AT1 psychological_JJ contract._NNU 2.2_MC ._. 
Threat_NN1 perceptions_NN2 ,_, severity_NN1 and_CC likelihood_NN1 ,_, and_CC monitoring_VVG The_AT perception_NN1 of_IO threat_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT anticipation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 psychological_JJ (_( e.g._REX ,_, assault_NN1 )_) ,_, physical_JJ (_( e.g._REX ,_, battery_NN1 )_) ,_, or_CC sociological_JJ (_( e.g._REX ,_, theft_NN1 )_) violation_NN1 or_CC harm_VV0 to_TO oneself_PNX1 or_CC others_NN2 ,_, and_CC which_DDQ may_VM be_VBI induced_VVN vicari-_NN1 ously_RR ._. 
From_II a_AT1 security_NN1 perspective_NN1 ,_, the_AT focal_JJ stance_NN1 in_II organizations_NN2 has_VHZ relied_VVN heavily_RR on_II a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO deterrence_NN1 to_TO try_VVI to_TO prevent_VVI people_NN from_II carrying_VVG out_RP threatening_VVG acts_NN2 by_II fear_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 ,_, punishment_NN1 ,_, or_CC retaliation_NN1 ._. 
In_II organizations_NN2 ,_, deterrents_NN2 are_VBR applied_VVN in_II two_MC ways_NN2 :_: internal_JJ threats_NN2 of_IO punishments_NN2 for_IF misbehaviors_NN2 ,_, and_CC warnings_NN2 of_IO external_JJ threats_NN2 to_TO gain_VVI compliance_NN1 with_IW rules_NN2 or_CC policies_NN2 ._. 
Security_NN1 policies_NN2 are_VBR organi-_JJ zational_JJ instruments_NN2 that_CST establish_VV0 the_AT rules_NN2 and_CC punitive_JJ sanctions_NN2 regarding_II security_NN1 behaviors_NN2 ._. 
Increasingly_RR ,_, employment_NN1 is_VBZ conditioned_VVN upon_II employee_NN1 agreements_NN2 that_CST elicit_VV0 promises_NN2 to_TO comply_VVI with_IW security_NN1 policies_NN2 including_II allowing_VVG the_AT organization_NN1 to_TO collect_VVI personal_JJ data_NN and_CC monitoring_VVG their_APPGE activities._NNU 2.3_MC ._. 
Efficacy_NN1 and_CC monitoring_VVG On_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 ,_, fear_VV0 appeals_NN2 may_VM serve_VVI to_TO mobilize_VVI people_NN for_IF taking_VVG actions_NN2 against_II threats_NN2 ,_, but_CCB they_PPHS2 can_VM have_VHI a_AT1 reverse_JJ effect_NN1 --_NN1 they_PPHS2 might_VM engender_VVI fatalistic_JJ attitudes_NN2 in_II some_DD people_NN ._. 
The_AT coping_NN1 mechanisms_NN2 people_NN may_VM take_VVI toward_II espoused_JJ threats_NN2 rely_VV0 in_RR21 part_RR22 on_II their_APPGE perceived_JJ confidence_NN1 in_II their_APPGE abilities_NN2 ,_, or_CC self-efficacy_NN1 ,_, to_TO take_VVI alterative_JJ courses_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 compared_VVN against_II their_APPGE personal_JJ assessments_NN2 of_IO the_AT costs_NN2 of_IO those_DD2 actions_NN2 ._. 
In_II context_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE study_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 ranges_VVZ from_II availing_VVG themselves_PPX2 of_IO adjudication_NN1 channels_NN2 or_CC quitting_VVG compared_VVN to_II conceding_VVG to_II mon-_NN1 itoring_VVG practices_NN2 and_CC suppressing_VVG their_APPGE resentments_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ because_CS compared_VVN to_II people_NN with_IW low_JJ self-_JJ efficacy_NN1 ,_, people_NN who_PNQS possess_VV0 high_JJ self-efficacy_NN1 tend_VV0 to_TO perceive_VVI more_DAR control_NN1 over_II their_APPGE outcomes_NN2 ,_, such_DA having_VHG a_AT1 greater_JJR say_NN1 in_II organizational_JJ practices_NN2 ,_, and_CC having_VHG the_AT ability_NN1 to_TO quit_VVI and_CC find_VVI other_JJ employ-_JJ ment_NN1 when_CS working_VVG conditions_NN2 become_VV0 unsuitable._NNU 2.4_MC ._. 
Trust_VV0 and_CC monitoring_NN1 As_CSA indicated_VVN before_RT ,_, the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ employee_NN1 expectations_NN2 of_IO what_DDQ the_AT organization_NN1 will_NN1 pro-_NN1 vide_FW and_CC what_DDQ they_PPHS2 owe_VV0 the_AT organization_NN1 in_II return_NN1 forms_VVZ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 psychological_JJ contract_NN1 ._. 
People_NN will_VM tolerate_VVI monitoring_NN1 and_CC give_VVI up_RP certain_JJ of_IO their_APPGE privacies_NN2 so_RG long_RR as_CSA they_PPHS2 perceive_VV0 that_CST the_AT psychological_JJ contract_NN1 is_VBZ maintained_VVN ._. 
While_CS some_DD research_NN1 has_VHZ suggested_VVN that_DD1 age_NN1 may_VM factor_NN1 into_II perceptions_NN2 of_IO the_AT psychological_JJ contract_NN1 (_( and_CC hence_RR should_VM be_VBI controlled_VVN in_II hypotheses_NN2 tests_NN2 )_) there_EX are_VBR significant_JJ relationships_NN2 be-_JJ tween_NN1 a_AT1 psychological_JJ contract_NN1 breach_NN1 and_CC work-related_JJ outcomes._NNU 2.5_MC ._. 
Procedural_JJ justice_NN1 interactions_NN2 with_IW TCM_NP1 components_NN2 The_AT literature_NN1 posits_VVZ many_DA2 influences_NN2 among_II people_NN in_II their_APPGE compliance_NN1 with_IW security_NN1 policies_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ establish_VV0 the_AT rules_NN2 for_IF governing_VVG their_APPGE behaviors_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 people_NN simply_RR comply_VV0 with_IW policies_NN2 is_VBZ incomplete_JJ in_II explaining_VVG organizational_JJ results_NN2 ._. 
Employees_NN2 may_VM comply_VVI with_IW the_AT policies_NN2 but_CCB harbor_NN1 resentment_NN1 or_CC exhibit_VV0 other_JJ (_( possibly_RR subtle_JJ )_) counterproductive_JJ behaviors_NN2 if_CS they_PPHS2 consider_VV0 the_AT policies_NN2 unfair_JJ ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, the_AT literature_NN1 reports_VVZ that_CST per-_JJ sistent_JJ fear_NN1 appeals_NN2 and_CC protracted_JJ hyper-vigilance_NN1 can_VM have_VHI negative_JJ consequences_NN2 for_IF psychological_JJ states_NN2 of_IO mind_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 attitudes_NN2 ,_, and_CC suggests_VVZ negative_JJ effects_NN2 from_II systemic_JJ monitoring_NN1 on_II prosocial_JJ behaviors_NN2 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 abiding._NNU 3_MC ._. 
Method_NN1 3.1_MC ._. 
Participants_NN2 To_TO gain_VVI a_AT1 bounded_JJ population_NN1 with_IW qualities_NN2 that_CST would_VM yield_VVI data_NN to_TO address_VVI our_APPGE research_NN1 ques-_NN1 tion_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 selected_VVD and_CC gained_VVD entree_NN1 into_II a_AT1 multinational_JJ company_NN1 with_IW offices_NN2 in_II the_AT US_NP1 ,_, throughout_II Europe_NP1 ,_, throughout_II the_AT UK_NP1 ,_, and_CC in_II various_JJ locations_NN2 in_II India_NP1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 made_VVD this_DD1 selection_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT sampling_NN1 validity_NN1 could_VM be_VBI ascertained_VVN while_CS preserving_VVG the_AT multinational_JJ attributes_NN2 important_JJ to_II our_APPGE study_NN1 ._. 
The_AT company_NN1 was_VBDZ involved_JJ in_II a_AT1 range_NN1 of_IO product_NN1 development_NN1 and_CC services_NN2 ,_, conducting_VVG quality_NN1 assurance_NN1 ,_, delivering_VVG customer_NN1 support_NN1 and_CC services_NN2 ,_, and_CC performing_VVG marketing_NN1 and_CC sales_NN functions_NN2 --_NN1 and_CC we_PPIS2 sampled_VVD across_II the_AT lines_NN2 of_IO business_NN1 to_TO help_VVI preserve_VVI ecological_JJ validity_NN1 while_CS controlling_VVG for_IF variations_NN2 in_II organizational_JJ contexts_NN2 and_CC to_TO avoid_VVI cross-organizational_JJ validity_NN1 issues_NN2 ._. 
Using_VVG a_AT1 com-_JJ pany_NN1 employee_NN1 list_NN1 frame_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 randomly_RR sampled_VVD 624_MC employees_NN2 from_II a_AT1 population_NN1 of_IO approximately_RR 102,000_MC ,_, and_CC we_PPIS2 received_VVD a_AT1 62%_NNU response_NN1 rate_NN1 ,_, or_CC 387_MC respondents_NN2 giving_VVG us_PPIO2 a_AT1 95%_NNU sampling_NN1 confidence_NN1 level_NN1 &plusmn;5%_FO at_II a_AT1 standard_JJ error_NN1 of_IO estimate_NN1 of_IO 0.05_MC ._. 
We_PPIS2 then_RT collected_VVD absenteeism_NN1 data_NN for_IF these_DD2 partic-_JJ ipants_NN2 in_II number_NN1 of_IO hours_NNT2 over_II a_AT1 20_MC month_NNT1 period._NNU 3.2_MC ._. 
Instrumentation_NN1 In_II order_NN1 to_TO properly_RR assess_VVI during_II our_APPGE manipulation_NN1 checks_VVZ the_AT codification_NN1 of_IO the_AT data_NN ,_, we_PPIS2 asked_VVD the_AT respondents_NN2 what_DDQ information_NN1 the_AT company_NN1 collected_VVN for_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO monitoring_NN1 and_CC that_CST they_PPHS2 considered_VVD "_" personal_JJ "_" ._. 
Responses_NN2 included_VVD ,_, Meyers-Briggs_NP1 type_NN1 indictors_NN2 (_( given_VVN to_II all_DB employees_NN2 )_) ,_, "_" 4S_MC2 "_" Selling_VVG Styles_NN2 inventory_NN1 (_( given_VVN to_II the_AT sales_NN department_NN1 )_) ,_, yearly_JJ credit_NN1 checks_NN2 ,_, pre-employment_JJ background_NN1 checks_VVZ including_II reference_NN1 checks_NN2 ,_, drug_NN1 tests_NN2 ,_, educational_JJ records_NN2 and_CC criminal_JJ histories_NN2 ,_, social_JJ security_NN1 numbers_NN2 ,_, fingerprint_NN1 scans_NN2 (_( for_IF some_DD employees_NN2 who_PNQS access_VV0 computer_NN1 server_NN1 rooms_NN2 )_) ,_, military_JJ service_NN1 records_NN2 ,_, performance_NN1 evaluations_NN2 ,_, demographics_NN2 and_CC addresses_NN2 ,_, health_NN1 information_NN1 (_( including_II disabilities_NN2 )_) ,_, various_JJ information_NN1 collected_VVN about_II their_APPGE activities_NN2 during_II the_AT monitoring_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 what_DDQ Websites_NN2 they_PPHS2 visited_VVD and_CC emails_NN2 they_PPHS2 sent_VVD ,_, and_CC information_NN1 including_II biometrics_NN2 used_VVN for_IF identification_NN1 and_CC authentication._NNU 3.3_MC ._. 
Procedures_NN2 Corporate_JJ executive_NN1 sponsors_NN2 facilitated_VVD our_APPGE entree_NN1 once_RR researchers_NN2 had_VHD signed_VVN a_AT1 nondisclosure_NN1 and_CC confidentiality_NN1 agreement_NN1 and_CC had_VHD obtained_VVN approvals_NN2 from_II the_AT institutional_JJ IRB_NP1 ._. 
The_AT researchers_NN2 were_VBDR provided_VVN with_IW company_NN1 directory_NN1 of_IO the_AT population_NN1 under_II study_NN1 ,_, including_II location_NN1 and_CC email_NN1 addresses_NN2 ._. 
The_AT corporate_JJ sponsors_NN2 sent_VVD each_DD1 participant_NN1 a_AT1 message_NN1 ,_, with_IW an_AT1 acknowledgement_NN1 flag_NN1 set_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 were_VBDR informed_VVN that_CST researchers_NN2 were_VBDR studying_VVG a_AT1 problem_NN1 involving_VVG how_RRQ best_RRT to_II ad-_JJ dress_NN1 employee_NN1 concerns_NN2 and_CC simultaneously_RR respond_VV0 to_II company_NN1 security_NN1 concerns._NNU 4_MC ._. 
Results_NN2 We_PPIS2 took_VVD an_AT1 initial_JJ step_NN1 to_TO compare_VVI respondents_NN2 on_II their_APPGE perceptions_NN2 about_II the_AT collection_NN1 of_IO infor-_JJ mation_NN1 for_IF employment_NN1 purposes_NN2 compared_VVN to_II perceptions_NN2 of_IO information_NN1 collections_NN2 from_II monitor-_JJ ing_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ interesting_JJ to_TO note_VVI that_CST the_AT mean_JJ scores_NN2 were_VBDR significantly_RR different_JJ ._. 
The_AT information_NN1 collection_NN1 for_IF employment_NN1 mean_NN1 was_VBDZ 4.6_MC (_( on_II a_AT1 scale_NN1 of_IO 7_MC )_) indicating_VVG a_AT1 rather_RG benign_JJ view_NN1 of_IO the_AT practice_NN1 ,_, but_CCB monitoring_NN1 had_VHD a_AT1 mean_JJ score_NN1 of_IO 3.2_MC indicating_VVG a_AT1 rather_RG unfavorable_JJ view_NN1 of_IO the_AT practice_NN1 ._. 
Therefore_RR ,_, the_AT separation_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 data_NN for_IF the_AT dependent_JJ variable_NN1 and_CC the_AT moderation_NN1 test_NN1 became_VVD crucial_JJ in_II our_APPGE interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT results_NN2 ._. 
The_AT descriptive_JJ data_NN for_IF our_APPGE study_NN1 are_VBR shown_VVN in_II Table_NN1 1_MC1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 process_NN1 ,_, companies_NN2 may_VM use_VVI tactics_NN2 to_TO make_VVI vigilant_JJ an_AT1 organization_NN1 's_GE workforce_NN1 making_VVG even_RR remote_JJ threats_NN2 seem_VV0 severe_JJ and_CC imminent_JJ but_CCB mitigated_VVD under_II the_AT auspices_NN2 of_IO due_JJ care_NN1 of_IO the_AT organization_NN1 to_TO assuage_VVI negative_JJ attitudes_NN2 ._. 
Security_NN1 awareness_NN1 and_CC training_NN1 programs_NN2 ,_, security_NN1 standards_NN2 and_CC compliance_NN1 audits_NN2 ,_, some_DD types_NN2 of_IO mandatory_JJ access_NN1 controls_NN2 ,_, and_CC issuing_JJ warnings_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 popup_NN1 dialogs_NN2 in_II user_NN1 interfaces_NN2 are_VBR just_RR some_DD of_IO the_AT ways_NN2 that_CST organizations_NN2 elicit_VV0 fear_NN1 appeals_NN2 ._. 
Fear_VV0 appeals_NN2 must_VM constantly_RR reenergize_VVI employees_NN2 because_CS over_II time_NNT1 their_APPGE effects_NN2 begin_VV0 to_TO deplete_VVI ._. 
Unless_CS people_NN are_VBR continuously_RR mobilized_VVN against_II a_AT1 threat_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 eventually_RR become_VV0 complacent_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ important_JJ in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 ensuring_VVG security_NN1 policy_NN1 compliance_NN1 and_CC security-conscious_JJ behaviors_NN2 because_CS it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN found_VVN for_REX21 example_REX22 that_CST people_NN may_VM ignore_VVI or_CC disable_VVI security_NN1 measures_NN2 when_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR perceived_VVN as_CSA intrusive_JJ or_CC ineffective_JJ ,_, unless_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR constantly_RR placed_VVN in_II a_AT1 psychological_JJ state_NN1 of_IO hyper-vigilance_NN1 about_II severe_JJ impending_JJ threats_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, this_DD1 is_VBZ also_RR significant_JJ because_CS employee_NN1 attitudes_NN2 about_II monitoring_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE behavior_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 for_IF organizations_NN2 to_TO provide_VVI security_NN1 initiatives_NN2 depend_VV0 on_II their_APPGE perceptions_NN2 of_IO the_AT severity_NN1 and_CC likelihood_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 threat_NN1 occurrence_NN1 ._. 
