Access to this full-text is provided by Canadian Center of Science and Education.
Content available from International Journal of Business and Management
This content is subject to copyright.
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
2
A Meta-Analysis of Workaholism
Avani S. Patel1, Mark C. Bowler2, Jennifer L. Bowler3 & Scott A. Methe3
1 comScore, Inc. USA
2 Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, USA
3 East Carolina University, Greenville, USA
Correspondence: Mark C. Bowler, Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, USA.
E-mail: bowlerm@ecu.edu
Received: January 31, 2012 Accepted: March 23, 2012 Published: June 1, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n11p2 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n11p2
Abstract
This meta-analysis examines the relationship between workaholism and numerous work behaviors and outcomes
in an attempt to a) derive a consensus regarding the current state of our understanding of this construct, and b)
clarify the impact that the compulsion to work may have on an individual’s life. Overall, based on data from 44
studies, results indicate that there is a considerable amount of variability between workaholism and work-related
outcomes. Specifically, the two most established and reputable measures of workaholism, the Work Addiction
Risk Test (WART) and the Workaholism Battery (WorkBat), appear to focus on uniquely different aspects of
workaholism and were subsequently found to be differentially related to various work criteria. These findings
suggest that a consistent definition and operationalization of workaholism is explicitly needed before further
progress can be made.
Keywords: addiction, meta-analysis, workaholism
1. Introduction
The term workaholism was originally coined to describe an individual’s deleterious compulsion to work (Oates,
1971). This impulse was initially considered a form of addiction that was equally as destructive as alcoholism;
hence, Oates suggested the term workaholism. Over time the definition has been expanded to include not only
the symptoms of harmed mental, physical, and social health typically associated with alcoholism (Porter, 1996),
but also the specific personality characteristics that comprise the workaholic profile (Harpaz & Snir, 2003; Scott,
Moore, & Miceli, 1997).This broadened conceptualization of workaholism– along with its association with
personality and mental health – is considered to have a serious impact on both the personal and work lives of
countless individuals (c.f. Booth-Kewley & Friedman, 1987; Chamberlin & Zhang, 2009; Clark, McEwen,
Collard, & Hickok, 1993).
Workaholism is problematic for everyone involved; negatively affecting not only workaholics, but also their
employers, families, and society as a whole (Robinson, 2000, 2001; Salmela-Aro & Nurmi, 2004). Although
naïve interpretation of its meaning may lead many to initially believe that a workaholic is an asset to their
organization, research has discovered evidence to the contrary. For example, Salmela-Aro and Nurmi (2004)
noted that individuals who tend to work excessively– a hallmark behavior of workaholics – are at a higher risk of
burnout. Subsequently, workaholics often experience emotional exhaustion, cynicism about their job, and
dissatisfaction with their work accomplishments (Maslach & Jackson, 1984), all of which decrease worker
productivity (Liang & Chu, 2009). Aside from negatively affecting effectiveness on the job, workaholism has
also been shown to negatively impact an individual’s family life. For example, Robinson (2001) noted that
workaholism takes a significant toll on individuals’ relationships with their spouses and negatively influences the
development of their children. This subsequently engenders unsatisfactory relationships with family members
due to the emotional and mental strains placed not only on the workaholic but also on his or her family members.
Moreover, within our society workaholics are frequently rewarded for their work-related behaviors, thus
perpetuating the behavior of existing workaholics and encouraging others to become workaholics under the
societal label of virtue (McMillan & Northern, 1995).Thus, workaholism is ultimately a societal predicament as
much as an individual dilemma. The positive reception surrounding this disorder has created denial on the part of
workaholics, and the lack of recognition of workaholism as an actual problem is fueling its perpetuation (Porter,
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 3
1996).
Research also suggests that workaholism is associated with numerous life-affecting variables such as an
individual's level of happiness (Schaufeli, Bakker, Van der Heijden, & Prins, 2009), need for perfection (Burke
& Fiksenbaum, 2009), supervisor support and co-worker cohesion (Johnstone & Johnston, 2005), mental and
physical health (McMillan & O'Driscoll, 2004), and work-family conflict (Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, 2009).
However, the verity of these relationships is not easily estimated due to discrepancies across studies with respect
to the criterion variables used. Thus, it is difficult to differentiate between true correlations and random error (c.f.
Aziz & Zickar, 2006; Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2009; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008).
A more prominent issue is the lack of consistency regarding the operationalization of workaholism across studies.
For example, when utilizing the Work Addiction Risk Test, Schaufeli and colleagues (2008) renamed the “need
for control” factor to “working excessively.”Similarly, when utilizing the Workaholism Battery, Burke and
Fiksenbaum (2009) renamed the “work enjoyment” factor to “passion and drive to addiction.”Subsequently, an
overabundance of measures purportedly measure workaholism but utilize different operational definitions. Thus
again, it is difficult to ascertain the current state of workaholism and determine whether it has consistent
relationships with other variables. Hence, the primary purpose of the present study is to clarify the current state
of the construct of workaholism, specifically elucidating its relationship with some of the more common aspects
of work behaviors and outcomes. Clarification of the correlates of workaholism will provide a step forward in
developing a commonly agreed-upon definition of this form of addiction. Additionally, this study seeks to
determine which, if any, measure of workaholism constitute a superior predictor of the work related outcomes
typically examined within this literature base.
1.1 Definitions of Workaholism
The original conceptualization of a workaholic is “a person whose need for work has become so excessive that it
creates noticeable disturbance or interference with his bodily health, personal happiness, and interpersonal
relations, and with his smooth social functioning” (Oates, 1971). For over a decade after Oates’ earliest
description, the definition of workaholism did not evolve substantially. Nagy and Davis (1985) later redefined
workaholism as “total devotion to an occupation or cause” (p. 1) and two years later, Booth-Kewley and
Friedman (1987) utilized a simpler definition of a workaholic as a hurried, impatient individual. Similarly,
Spruell (1987) additionally defined a workaholic simply as someone who works long hours regardless of the
productivity engendered by the time spent. Although Spruell noted that endless hours of work are usually a
manifestation of assorted motivators and result in different personal effects, she did not elaborate with regard to
what those motivators and effects could be.
More recently, as the study of workaholism has progressed, the definition has evolved to include specific types
of workaholics. Spence and Robbins (1992) presented a two-factor approach to workaholism, categorizing
workaholics as either work enthusiasts or non-enthusiastic workaholics. By their definition, work enthusiasts are
individuals who are very involved in their work and thoroughly enjoy it, but are not particularly driven or
compelled to work. For example, someone who would be considered a work enthusiast would work many long
hours every week because they genuinely enjoy their work, not because they have an insatiable need to work.
Thus, these individuals seemingly have no negative mental or physical health consequences due to their
workaholic nature, but perhaps may be emotionally struggling with deteriorating social relationships outside of
work. In contrast, non-enthusiastic workaholics, or customary workaholics, are those who are highly involved in
their work and lack enjoyment, yet feel driven to work. For example, a non-enthusiastic workaholic would be
someone that works many long hours every week because they feel compelled to do so, not because they take
pleasure in their work. Thus, these individuals may display more mental and physical strain than work
enthusiasts, and also will likely experience unsatisfactory social relationships with family and friends.
Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) criticized Spence and Robbins’ definition, contending that a definition of
workaholism should involve more stable behavioral patterns. Specifically, they distinguished among three types
of workaholics: compulsive-dependent workaholics, perfectionist workaholics, and achievement-oriented
workaholics. According to Scott and colleagues, a compulsive dependent workaholic is an individual who works
more than they intend to and, although they realize they are overworking themselves, they cannot physically and
mentally abstain from working excessively. Thus, these types of workaholics are like many other addicts of
different persuasions in that they recognize their addictive behavior and the harm it is causing, yet are unable to
overcome the addiction of their own will. Perfectionist workaholics are similar to compulsive dependent
workaholics in that they also show signs of obsessive compulsive personality disorder; however, perfectionist
workaholics experience an overbearing need for control and are very meticulous. These individuals find it very
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
4
difficult to share their work with team members and are compelled to be scrupulous over trivial details. Such
behaviors can lead to discord with coworkers and inefficient use of time at work. Finally, achievement-oriented
workaholics are described as competitive personalities who intensely desire success and a strong career identity.
These individuals are driven to work excessively in order to achieve the goals they have established for
themselves. It is likely that these individuals will not only physically and mentally exhaust themselves, but will
probably also annihilate their relationships with their coworkers, friends, and family due to their insatiable
competitive nature.
Robinson (2000) suggested a novel typology of workaholics that included relentless workaholics, bulimic
workaholics, attention deficit workaholics, and savoring workaholics. He described relentless workaholics as the
stereotypical workaholics who are high in both work initiation and work completion. These workaholics are
probably most comparable to the achievement-oriented workaholics mentioned previously. They frequently
invest long hours on the job and exceed what is asked of them due to an innate drive to work. Whereas relentless
workaholics work compulsively and constantly, bulimic workaholics work more sporadically. Additionally,
bulimic workaholics are known to be low in work initiation but high in work completion. These workaholics are
unlikely to seek out work, but when presented with a new project, they are prone to adamantly work on it until it
is completed. Their determination to finish their work tasks often leaves them mentally and physically exhausted,
which is probably the cause of their low likelihood to initiate work. In contrast, attention deficit workaholics are
high in work initiation but low in work completion because they are adrenaline-seeking and readily lose interest
in work tasks. These individuals are addicted to the surge of energy and excitement engendered by new projects;
thus, they may accumulate many different projects at once and ultimately experience burnout before any of the
projects are completed. Finally, savoring workaholics are low in both work initiation and work completion; they
are typically perfectionists who are so detail-oriented that they often miss deadlines. These individuals are prone
to obsessive compulsive disorder and may find it difficult to work in teams as they need tasks to be completed
according to their specific guidelines and standards.
Although these operational definitions have progressed from a simple description of workaholism as a
compulsion to work to a more complex explanation of the different manifestations of workaholism, little
empirical effort has specifically sought to identify the psychological, social, and physical effects of workaholism
as an addiction. Alcoholism is known to have physical side effects such as liver failure and heart problems, along
with psychological side effects such as depression and violent behavior. Unlike alcoholism and many other
known addictions, workaholism has no openly agreed-upon physical, emotional, or mental effects. Therefore,
this meta-analysis seeks to combine and analyze data from prior research measuring workaholism in an effort to
increase our understanding of the overall impact of numerous operationalizations of workaholism.
1.2 Measures of Workaholism
There are numerous measures of workaholism including Clark’s (1993) Schedule for Non adaptive and Adaptive
Personality-Workaholism (SNAP-Work), Robinson and Carroll’s (1999) Children of Workaholic Parents
Screening Test (CWST), and Senholzi’s (2008) Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). However, of
all of the workaholism measures, the two that have received the most empirical attention, and are subsequently
the focus of this meta-analysis, are Spence and Robbins’ (1992) Workaholism Battery (WorkBat) and
Robinson’s (1999) Work Addiction Risk Test (WART).
The WorkBat (1992) operationalizes workaholism as being comprised of three factors including (1) work
enjoyment, (2) work involvement, and (3) drive to work. Specifically:
Work enjoyment is a measure of how much an individual likes doing his or her work, work involvement
is an evaluation of how invested an individual is in his or her work, and drive to work is a measure of an
individual’s compulsion-like motivation to work. (p. 162)
The WorkBat is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 25 items divided between the three factors; work
involvement (eight items), drive to work (seven items), and work enjoyment (10 items). All of the items utilize a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). Work enjoyment items are reverse-scored, after
which high scores on all three factors are considered to be indicative of workaholism. Overall, the WorkBat has
been used in approximately 482 studies, with each examining either individual factor scores or the aggregated
score in relation to workaholism.
Robinson’s (1999) Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) is growing in popularity as a measure of workaholism
(c.f. Brady, Vodanovich, & Rotunda, 2008; Brough, O'Driscoll, Kalliath, Cooper, & Poelmans, 2009;
Chamberlin & Zhang, 2009). The WART operationalizes workaholism as a five-factor model including (1)
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 5
compulsive tendencies, (2) control, (3) impaired communication/self-absorption, (4) inability to delegate, and (5)
self-worth. Specifically:
Compulsive tendencies are characterized by one’s need to hurry, stay busy, multitask, overly commit,
feelings of guilt if not working, working long hours, placing self-imposed deadlines for oneself,
difficulty relaxing, and lack of time spent socializing. Control is defined as a need for perfectionism
that causes impatience, irritation, and anger towards others and oneself when work is not suitable to the
workaholic’s standards. Impaired communication and self-absorption is identified by lack of
attentiveness to what others have to say, jumping into tasks before completing necessary prior steps,
making decisions without factual support, and lack of interest in relationships with others and the
milestones in their lives. Inability to delegate is the unwillingness to entrust others with work
responsibilities and failure to ask others for help when it is needed. And finally, self-worth is described
as feeling guilty when not working and being unforgiving towards one’s minor mistakes and setbacks.
(p. 202)
The WART is composed of 25 statements which participants are asked to rate on a scale of 1 (never true) to 4
(always true). Individuals scoring between 25 and 54 are usually considered not to be addicted to work, those
between 55 and 69 are mildly work addicted, and those with scores of 70 to 100 are considered to be highly
addicted. Overall, the WART has been used in approximately 138 studies that have examined individual factor
scores and the aggregated score in relation to workaholism.
1.3 Current State of Workaholism
Despite the various conceptualizations of workaholism, consensus exists with regard to several expected
outcomes. The majority of workaholism research hypothesized that one of the leading concerns of the disorder is
its negative effect on one’s personal relationships and social life (Bonebright & Clay, 2000; Burke, 2000;
Robinson & Post, 1997). Research shows that workaholics’ ratings of their condition are typically less severe
than those provided by their significant others, and workaholics are more likely to experience greater
disturbances in social relationships than non-workaholics (McMillan, O'Driscoll, & Brady, 2004). Ironically, as
the quality of social relationships decreases, the onset of workaholism is usually hypothesized to be propelled by
encouragement and praise from co-workers and supervisors (Johnstone & Johnston, 2005; Liang & Chu, 2009;
Smith, 2007).Support may come in the form of positive work evaluations and feedback (Piotrowski &
Vodanovich, 2006), competitive peers (Ng et al., 2007), and workaholic supervisors setting high standards (Ng
et al., 2007).
Another common finding is that workaholism is correlated with long working hours. There is a general
consensus among researchers that the longer the period of time one works beyond that which is necessary for
their job, the more likely he or she is to become a workaholic (Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2009; Burke et al., 2008;
Feeney & Bozeman, 2009; Robinson, Flowers, & Ng, 2006; Snir & Zohar, 2008;).These longer hours are usually
not hypothesized to be motivated by monetary gain. Although income is just as compelling an incentive for
workaholics as for non-workaholics, it has not been linked with the drive behind the disorder (Burke, 2004;
Srivastava, Locke, & Bartol, 2001).
Workaholism has also been purported to be related to burnout and negative feelings about work and life.
Workaholism-induced burnout has been shown to be related to negative emotions due to high levels of stress, as
well as more physical health symptoms (Burke, Richardsen, & Mortinussen, 2004). Taris, Beckers, Verhoeven,
Geurts, Kompier, and van der Linden (2006) hypothesized that work exhaustion and work-life interference
caused by workaholism will result in negative feelings about oneself and life in general. Schaufeli and colleagues
(2008) investigated the relationship between workaholism and burnout as a product of job demands. Schaufeli
and colleagues (2009) also researched burnout as a result of work-life conflict due to workaholism.
1.4 The Present Study
Aside from the few commonalities discussed in the previous section, a lack of clarity remains regarding the
consistent and specific relations workaholism has with one’s personal life and overall wellbeing. This
meta-analysis seeks to better understand the correlates of workaholism based on findings from previous research.
Specifically, this study aims to identify the most common correlates of workaholism with hopes to develop a
universally agreed-upon construct for the disorder. As previously noted, various definitions of workaholism exist
that focus upon differing aspects of this form of addiction. Combining and analyzing the data from prior
workaholism research will serve to increase our understanding of the overall impact of the numerous
operationalizations of workaholism. Moreover, clarifying the construct of workaholism through its relationships
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
6
with its correlates will help to illuminate the implications workaholism has on one’s life, which will provide a
step forward in its prognosis and prevention.
2. Methods
2.1 Literature Search
Articles were collected through an Internet search using the PsycINFO database (American Psychological
Association, 1887-2009). No date range was set in order to ensure the most comprehensive analysis of
workaholism measures. Keywords used in the search were workaholism, work addiction risk test, WART,
workaholism battery, WorkBat, and workaholism measures. In addition, articles were located by conducting a
reverse citation search for the Robinson (1999) article presenting the development of the WART and the Spence
and Robbins (1992) article presenting the WorkBat. As previously noted, the WART and the WorkBat measures
served as focal points due to their prominence within the study of workaholism.
2.2 Inclusion Criteria
Once the initial list of studies was created using the results of the literature search, several inclusion criteria were
applied. First, only peer-reviewed articles, not student dissertations, were included in the meta-analysis. The use of
only peer-reviewed articles ensured that only studies utilizing quality research designs were included. Next, of the
foreign studies, only those that provided an English translation were considered for analysis due to limitations
regarding the researcher’s fluency in languages other than English. Lastly, in order to be included in the final set of
articles for the meta-analysis, each study must have reported (1) correlations between the predictor (i.e., the
WART or WorkBat) and criterion variables, and (2) the sample size used, as such statistical data is necessary to
calculate the mean correlation of workaholism with the criterion variables and the 95% confidence intervals about
those means. Overall, 44 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
2.3 Data Coding
Data cited in the included studies were coded according to specific rules developed to maintain inter-rater
reliability. Three raters coded the studies independently and the data were subsequently compared for consistency
among the raters. The identification coding for each study consisted of the initials of the rater, the date of the
coding, a citation for the article, the date of publication, and a unique article identification number that was
assigned to each article prior to coding. As some articles included more than one study, a unique number
corresponding to each individual study within an article was also recorded, in the order in which the studies were
reported within the article. For example, if the first article included two studies, the article identification number
was 1, and the study identification numberswere1 and 2 for the first and second study, respectively. Each
predictor-criterion correlation reported within every study was also recorded.
The predictor codes (i.e., workaholism) included the measure name, the dimension name, and the type of measure
studied (behavioral, self-report, supervisor rating, or other type of measure). If reported, the predictors’ internal
consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability were also recorded. The same coding scheme was
applied to the criterion variables, and additionally included the general category of the criterion studied.
The criterion variables were placed into general categories by three raters individually categorizing each criterion
and then cross-referencing the individual categorizations for inter-rater reliability. This process resulted in a final
list of 28 general criterion categories with 95% agreement among all three raters (see Table 1).
To test for moderators and assist with the analysis of the predictor-criterion correlations, demographic data of the
samples were coded. Sample size, form of sampling conducted (online, in person, or via mail), participants’
occupation (student, blue collar/manual labor, white collar/office position, upper level management,
professional/doctoral, or other job type), and the country from which the sample was selected were all recorded. If
provided by the studies, the percentage of each ethnicity and gender represented in the samples was noted, along
with the average age, salary, and hours worked per week with their corresponding standard deviations. Finally, the
overall quality of the studies was coded subjectively by listing any characteristics of the study that could
potentially jeopardize the overall integrity of the analysis. After coding all of the above for each study, the raters
indicated whether or not the study should be included in the final analysis.
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 7
Table 1. Criterion measure categorizations
Achievem ent Motivation Job Involvement Negative Non-p erformance work Behaviors
Achievement Needs Absorption Deperson alization
Drive Involvement Impaired Communication
Intrinsic Job Motivation Job Involvement Impaired Social Functioning
Perception of Feeling Driven Parsimony Intent to Quit
Perseveran ce Perception of Work Involvement Int erpersonal Deviance
Type A Behavior Subscale Superego Low accomplishment
Thinking about work Negative Reactions
Agreeableness Work Cent rality Non -delegation
Agreeableness Wor k Invo lvement Organizational Deviance
Trust others Reduced Medical Accom plishment
Job Stress
Commitment and Cohesion Communication Scale Perceived Control
Commitment Emotional Demands Job Control
Co-worker Cohesion Job St ress Locus of Control
Co-worker Support Leadership Scale Perceived Job Control
Dedication Ment al Demands
Organizational Commit ment Promot ion Scale Perceived Job Dem ands
Supervisor Support P sychological Job Demands Extra Hours Worked
Role Am biguity Organizational Demands
Conscientiousness Role Conflict Overwork
Conscientiousness Work Pressure Supervisors work 50-hour+ weeks
Orderliness Work Stress Peers work 50-hour+ weeks
Self-Monitoring Workload Scale Perceived Job Demands
Wor k-related Stress Complaint s Work Overload
Extraversion Work Overload-Quality
Ext raversion Mental Health Wo rk Overload-Quantit y
Expressive Orientation Anxiety
Depression Perfectionism
Flexibility Distress Oth er-Orient ed Perfect ionism
Obsessive-Compulsive Emotional Exhaustion Perfectionism
Obstinacy Emotional Healt h Self-Orient ed Perfect ionism
Openn ess to new experiences Mental Health Socially Prescribed Perfect ionism
Rigidi t y Ne uro t ici sm
T oleran ce of Ambiguity Psychosomatic Com plaint s Physical Health
Gastr oint estinal Scale
Job Characteristic Need for Affiliation Heart Attacks
Being at a work-related location "All in this together" Musculoskeletal Scale
Being with people from the work domain Affiliation Needs Perceived Health
Employment Sector Value in all Physical Health
Labor force sampling year Pseudoneurology Scale
Managerial Status Need for P ower P sychosomatic Symptoms
Non-profit organization Control of Others
Number of hours cont ract Dominance Needs
Occupation Type
Organization Size Negative Affect To ward s Non-work
Organizational Level More likely to respond to mistakes
Organizational Values
Calculated risks are encouraged
Work Itself
Work Situation
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
8
Table 1. (cont.)
3. Results
3.1 Work Addiction Risk Test
Table 2 presents a summary of the average correlations between the dimensions of the Work Addiction Risk Test
(WART) and the criterion categories of possible workaholism correlates. The effect sizes of the correlation
coefficients were rationalized using Cohen’s (1988) suggestion that a large effect size is greater than or equal
to .5; a moderate effect is between .5 and .3; and a correlation between .3 and .1 is small.
Table 2 also presents the 95% confidence intervals about the mean correlation coefficients using the Fisher r-to-z
transformation and the sample population, n. As observed within Table 2, several mean correlation coefficients
emerged for which the confidence interval included zero; thus, these scores are not significantly different from
zero at the 95% confidence level.
Positive Affect Towards Non-work Self-efficacy Un categorized
Average positive affect Beliefs and Fears Age
Community Satisfaction Composite Measure of Beliefs and Fears Antecedents
Emotional Satisfaction General self-efficacy Changed Job Since Graduation
Enjo yment P rofessional Efficacy Econ omic Or ient atio n
Family Satisfactio n Education Lev el
Happiness Wor k E ff o rt Experience
Life Satisfaction Average of P erceived Time and Effort Scor
e
Financial Needs
Mean of Five Life Satisfaction Measures Hours worked per week Gender
Physical Health Satisfaction Perceived Effort Marital Status
Physical Satisfaction Perceived Time Parental Status
Positive Performing work-related activity Personal Demographics
Positive Feeling Time on Job Physical Attraction
Relationship satisfaction Vigor Purpose in Life
Se lf - E s t e e m Relatio nsh ip Sta tus
Se lf - W o r t h Work-life Balance Organization has a narrow view
Balance Years Employer
Po sitive Affect To wards Work Balance and Imbalance Values Years Job
Career Satisfaction Balance of Rewards Young children present
Enjoyment Conducting Psychotherapy Balance Values
Fun at Work Life separate from work
Job Satisfaction Imbalance
Preferring work-related activity Imbalance Values
Self and Co-worker Perception of Joy in Work Inter-role Conflict
Nights Away from home per month
Positive Non-performance Work Behaviors Social support from partner
Challenging Organizational Deviance Strain-based Interference
Delegation Time-based Int erference
Flow Wo rk-f amily conflict
Innovative Organizational Deviance Work-Life Balance
Interpersonal Constructive Deviance Work-Life Conflict
Interpersonal Relations Work-Nonwork Conflict
Professional Su ccess
Affluence
Annual Income
Career Prospects
Future Career Prospects
Personal Accomplishment
Promotions
Sa la r y
Salary In crease
Tenure
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 9
3.1.1 Aggregated
Overall, scores on the aggregated WART displayed no significant correlation with job stress, perceived control,
positive affect towards non-work, and self-efficacy. However, scores on the aggregated WART did demonstrate
a weak but significant relationship with demographic, job characteristics, negative affect towards non-work, and
work effort. Furthermore, scores on the aggregated WART displayed moderate significant correlations with
negative affect towards work, perceived job demands, and work-life balance. Moreover, the aggregated WART
scores yielded a highly significant correlation with mental health, suggesting that workaholism, as measured by
the aggregated WART, is significantly related to mental health. However, it should be noted that this correlation
is based on a relatively small sample size. Although the effect sizes of the correlations between the aggregated
WART and negative affect towards work, perceived job demands, and work-life balance were not as large as the
effect size for mental health, the strength of the correlations with these other criterion measures suggests that
they are also related to workaholism. Thus, the relationship between the aggregated WART and these correlates
is worthy of consideration.
3.1.2 Compulsive Tendencies
Overall, scores on the Compulsive Tendencies dimension of the WART displayed no significant correlation with
demographics or perceived control. However, scores on the Compulsive Tendencies dimension did demonstrate
weak significant correlations with job stress, negative affect towards non-work, positive affect towards non-work,
professional success, and work effort. Scores on the Compulsive Tendencies dimension evidenced moderate
correlations with negative affect towards work and negative non-performance work behaviors. Strong
correlations emerged between scores on the Compulsive Tendencies dimension and need for power, perceived
job demands, and work-life balance. Hence, need for power, perceived job demands, and work-life balance all
displayed strong relationships with workaholism as measured by the Compulsive Tendencies dimension of the
WART. Although the correlations between the scores on the Compulsive Tendencies dimension and negative
affect towards work and negative non-performance work behaviors were less robust than the previously stated
correlations, their relationship with workaholism should nevertheless be noted.
3.1.3 Control
The Control dimension of the WART demonstrated no significant correlations with mental health or
self-efficacy. However, scores on the Control dimension did exhibit weak, yet significant, correlations with
commitment and cohesion, negative affect towards work, negative non-performance work behaviors, perceived
control, positive affect towards work, and work effort. Furthermore, scores on the Control dimension displayed
moderate significant correlations with job involvement, negative affect towards non-work, perceived job
demands, and positive affect towards non-work. Although these correlations are only moderate in strength, they
represent an attention-worthy significant relationship with workaholism through the Control dimension of the
WART. In addition, a strong significant correlation emerged between scores on the Control dimension and job
stress, indicating that level of job stress and a workaholic’s need for control are highly related.
3.1.4 Delegation
Scores on the Delegation dimension of the WART demonstrated no significant correlations with perceived
control, positive affect towards non-work, or work effort. However, weak significant correlations were noted
between scores on the Delegation dimension and both negative affect towards non-work and physical health.
Scores on the Delegation dimension did not yield moderate or strong significant correlations with any of the
criterion variables.
3.1.5 Impaired Communication
Scores on the Impaired Communication dimension of the WART did not evidence significant correlations with
perceived control or work effort. However, scores on the Impaired Communication dimension did demonstrate
moderate significant correlations with negative affect towards non-work and positive affect towards non-work.
Although no strong significant correlations emerged between the Impaired Communication dimension scores
and the criterion measures, the moderate correlations stated above indicate that these criteria are significantly
related to workaholism as measured by the WART.
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
10
Table 2. Work addiction risk test
3.1.6 Self-Worth
No significant correlations resulted between scores on the Self-Worth dimension of the WART and perceived
control. However, scores on the Self-Worth dimension did demonstrate weak significant correlations with
negative affect towards non-work, positive affect towards non-work, and work effort. Self-Worth dimension
scores did not display moderate or strong significant correlations with any of the workaholism criteria studied.
3.1.7 Summary
The absence of moderate or strong significant relationships between the WART dimensions of Self-Worth and
Delegation with any of the criterion measures indicates that they may be measuring other aspects of
workaholism that have yet to be studied, or that these dimensions may not be viable aspects of workaholism. The
Compulsive Tendencies and the Control dimensions appear to account for the largest effects of workaholism
according to the criteria employed in this meta-analysis. None of the criterion categories displayed a strong
relationship with all five dimensions of the WART. The aggregated WART only had a strong relationship with
the mental health criterion, but this criterion’s relationship with the individual dimensions has not yet been
examined (except for an insignificant correlation with the Control dimension).
3.2 Workaholism Battery
As with the previous analyses, Table 3 presents a summary of the average correlations linking the dimensions of
the Workaholism Battery (WorkBat) to criterion categories of possible workaholism correlates. Additionally,
Table 3 also presents the 95% confidence intervals about the mean correlation coefficients, using the Fisher
r-to-z transformation and the sample population, n, with several mean correlation coefficients not being
significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
3.2.1 Aggregated
Overall, scores on the aggregated WorkBat dimension displayed weak significant correlations with perceived job
demands and positive affect towards non-work. The aggregated WorkBat dimension scores also demonstrated
moderate significant correlations with negative non-performance work behaviors, perfectionism, physical health,
and positive affect towards work. Furthermore, the aggregated WorkBat cores yielded strong significant
correlations with job characteristics, job involvement, job stress, mental health, professional success, and work
effort. These moderate and strong correlations indicate that workaholism, as measured by the WorkBat, is
significantly related to these criteria. In light of these correlations and the WorkBat’s definition of workaholism,
nkrLU nkrLU nkrLU nkrLU nkrLU nkrLU
Achievement Motivation
Agreeableness
Commitment and Cohe sion 2348 4 .09 .05 .13
Conscientiousness
Demog raph ic 464 4 .11 .02 .20 862 6 .07 .14
Extraversion
Flexibility
Job Characteristic 464 4 .17 .08 .26
Job Involvement 587 1 .37 .31 .44
Jo b Str ess 130 1 .17 .34 130 1 .20 .03 .37 587 1 .58 . 53 .64
Mental Health 102 1 .67 .55 .77 2348 4 .04 .08
Need f or Affilia tion
Nee d fo r Powe r 326 1 .51 .43 . 59
Neg ativ e Aff ect Towar ds No n-wo rk 1450 8 . 20 .15 .25 870 3 .16 .09 .23 870 3 . 37 .31 .43 544 2 .10 .02 .18 870 3 . 43 .38 .49 870 3 .18 .12 .25
Neg ativ e Aff ect Towar ds W ork 464 4 . 33 .25 .41 663 5 .37 .31 .43 1174 2 .20 .15 . 26
Negative Non-performance work Behaviors 326 1 .41 .32 .50 1500 3 .19 .14 .24
Perc eived Cont rol 598 2 .01 -.07 .09 272 1 .09 -.03 .21 859 2 .15 .08 .22 272 1 .02 -.10 .14 272 1 .12 .24 272 1 .04 -.08 .16
Perc eive d Jo b Deman ds 232 2 . 32 .20 .43 431 3 .50 .43 .57 587 1 . 43 .37 .50
Perfectionism
Physical Health 733 1 . 10 .03 .17
Pos iti ve Af fect Towa rds Non-wo rk 830 4 .05 -. 02 .12 1492 7 .22 .17 . 27 924 3 .3 7 .31 .43 272 1 . 03 -. 09 .15 924 3 . 38 .33 .43 598 2 .20 .12 .28
Positive A ffect Towards Work 587 1 .21 .13 .29
Positive Non-performance Work Behaviors
Professional Success 398 2 .16 .06 .26
Self-e fficac y 232 2 . 05 -.08 .18 587 1 .06 -. 02 .14
Wo rk Effort 272 1 . 18 .06 .29 272 1 . 23 .11 .34 859 2 .12 .05 .19 272 1 . 09 -. 03 .21 272 1 .06 -.06 .18 272 1 .13 .01 .25
Wo rk-life Ba lanc e 594 5 . 36 .29 .43 1001 6 .56 .52 . 60
Note. n = total sample size; k = number of studies; r = average weighted correlation; L = lower limit of 95% confidence interval; U = upper limit of 95% confidence interval.
Self Wo rthAggregated Compulsive Tendencies Control Delegation Impaired Communication
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 11
it appears that the characteristics of one’s job, involvement with this job, level of job stress, mental health status,
and level of professional success may offer a viable method of identifying workaholic tendencies.
3.2.2 Drive
Scores on the Drive dimension of the WorkBat did not yield any significant correlations with conscientiousness,
extraversion, professional success, or relationship status. However, Drive dimension scores did demonstrate
weak significant correlations with agreeableness, commitment and cohesion, demographics, flexibility, job
characteristics, job involvement, mental health, negative affect towards non-work, negative affect towards work,
negative non-performance work behaviors, perceived control, physical health, positive affect towards non-work,
positive affect towards work, positive non-performance work behaviors, self-efficacy, and work effort. Moreover,
Drive dimension scores exhibited moderate correlations with achievement motivation, job stress, perceived job
demands, perfectionism, and work-life balance. These moderate correlations indicate that workaholism, as
defined through this dimension, is significantly related to one’s motivation for achievement, level of job stress,
job demands, need for perfectionism, and ability to balance work and life activities.
3.2.3 Work Enjoyment
Scores on the Work Enjoyment dimension of the WorkBat were not significantly correlated with
conscientiousness. However, Work Enjoyment dimension scores demonstrated weak significant correlations
with achievement motivation, agreeableness, demographics, extraversion, flexibility, job characteristics, job
stress, mental health, need for affiliation, negative affect towards non-work, negative non-performance work
behaviors, perceived control, perceived job demands, perfectionism, physical health, positive affect towards
non-work, positive non-performance work behaviors, professional success, relationship status, self-efficacy,
work effort, and work-life balance. Furthermore, Work Enjoyment dimension scores yielded moderate
correlations with commitment and cohesion, job involvement, negative affect towards work, and positive affect
towards work, suggesting that they are significantly related to workaholism as measured by the Work Enjoyment
dimension of the WorkBat and should be acknowledged as integral to the disorder.
Table 3. Woekaholism battery
nkrLU nkrLU nkrLU nkrLU
Ac hiev ement motivat ion 562 3 .34 .27 .42 495 2 .26 .18 .34 1060 2 .25 .20 .31
Ag reeab lenes s 496 1 .14 .05 .23 793 2 .23 .16 .29 46 1 .04 -.26 .33
Commitment and cohesion 2885 9 .11 .07 .15 748 6 .34 .28 .41
Con sc ientiou sn es s 496 1 .02 -.07 .11 496 1 .07 -.02 .16 496 1 .02 -.07 .11
Extra versio n 496 1 .04 -.05 .13 496 1 .21 .12 .29 496 1 .00 -.09 .09
Flexibilit y 816 2 .29 .23 .36 816 2 .17 .10 .24 496 1 .08 -. 01 .17
Jo b ch arac teris tic 171 1 .58 .47 .67 4042 11 .12 .09 .15 5154 16 .19 .17 .22 4298 12 .07 .04 .10
Jo b involv ement 556 2 .66 .62 .71 2894 12 .27 .24 .31 3194 13 .40 .01 .07 1239 6 .27 .22 .32
Jo b s tress 387 1 .54 .46 .61 3206 12 .37 .34 .40 3219 12 .24 .21 .28 704 2 .07 .14
Me ntal he alth 171 1 .58 .47 .67 3545 7 .28 .25 .31 2255 5 .21 .17 .25 1026 2 .04 -.02 .10
Need for affiliation 594 2 .20 .12 .28
Need for powe r
Neg ativ e affe ct t owards no n-wo rk 464 4 .21 .12 .29 675 5 .11 .03 .19 464 4 .28 .20 .37
Neg ativ e affe ct t owards work 1644 4 .29 .25 .34 1388 6 .34 .29 .39
Neg ativ e no n-performan ce wo rk behav iors 1120 4 .42 .38 .47 3078 8 .20 .17 .24 3413 10 .17 .14 .21 1344 4 .08 .03 .13
Perceived c ont rol 587 1 .18 .10 .26 199 1 .23 .09 .36
Perceived jo b de mands 389 1 .30 .21 .39 7160 12 .35 .33 .38 7366 14 .08 .06 .10
Perfect ionism 387 1 .46 .38 .54 1291 3 .38 .34 .43 2706 7 .28 .25 .32 590 2 .14 .06 .22
Phys ical h ealt h 557 2 .46 .39 .53 1765 5 .19 .15 .24 4052 10 .22 .19 .25 1060 2 .08 .02 .14
Positive a ffect to wards no n-wo rk 1905 5 .26 .22 .31 3876 12 .16 .13 .19 5497 17 .16 .13 .19 3756 10 .06 .03 .09
Positive a ffect to wards work 948 3 .39 .34 .45 2375 7 .12 .08 .16 4979 15 .31 .29 .34 1468 5 .10 .05 .15
Positive non-performance work behaviors 807 4 .15 .08 .22 1018 5 .13 .07 .19 807 4 .12 .05 .19
Pro fes sio nal s ucc es s 171 1 .50 .38 .61 1650 4 .04 -.01 .09 1789 4 .15 .10 .20 1590 3 .04 -.01 .09
Self-effica cy 2438 6 .24 .21 .28 1791 4 .24 .20 .29 1556 3 .02 -.03 .07
Work effort 357 1 .71 .66 .77 2812 8 .25 .22 .29 3554 11 .24 .21 .28 1669 6 .22 .18 .27
Work-life bala nce 983 7 .36 .31 .42 2607 13 .13 .09 .17 1761 10 .18 .14 .23
Aggregated Work InvolvmentWork EnjoymentDrive
Note. n = t otal s ample size; k = n umbe r of s tu dies; r = av erag e weighted correlat ion; L = lower limit of 95% confid ence in terv al; U = upper limit of 95%
confidence interval.
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
12
3.2.4 Work Involvement
Scores on the Work Involvement dimension of the WorkBat did not yield any significant correlations with
agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, flexibility, mental health, professional success, or self-efficacy.
However, scores on the Work Involvement dimension did demonstrate weak significant correlations with
achievement motivation, demographics, job characteristics, job involvement, negative affect towards non-work,
negative non-performance work behaviors, perfectionism, physical health, positive affect towards non-work,
positive affect towards work, positive non-performance work behaviors, relationship status, work effort, and
work-life balance. No moderate or strong significant correlations emerged between scores on the Work
Involvement dimension and any of the criterion variables.
3.2.5 Summary
Despite the absence of strong significant correlations between any of the criterion categories and the individual
dimensions of the WorkBat, several strong relationships nevertheless emerged between the aggregated WorkBat
and the criterion measures. This pattern of results indicates that drive to work, work involvement, and work
enjoyment must be combined in order to successfully correlate the WorkBat’s definition of workaholism with
the criterion measures that have been shown to identify with the aggregated WorkBat. When analyzed
individually, these three dimensions appear to lack the power necessary to correlate with any particular
workaholism criteria.
4. Discussion
The Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) and the Workaholism Battery (WorkBat) are the two most prominent
measures of workaholism, yet the results of this meta-analysis indicate that few meaningful relationships with
the criteria of interest are shared by both measures. In fact, only a few moderate to strong relationships with
criterion variables are shared within the dimensions of each measure. Such discrepancies between and within
two measures that purport to evaluate the same condition indicate that the definition of workaholism warrants
further clarification.
With respect to the WART, of the 28 workaholism criterion categories, only five (negative affect towards
non-work, negative affect towards work, perceived job demands, positive affect towards non-work, and
work-life balance) shared significant correlations with two or more WART dimensions. The Control and the
Impaired Communication dimensions both displayed moderate correlations with negative affect towards
non-work and positive affect towards non-work. None of the WorkBat dimensions displayed correlations greater
than .3 with these two categories.
The aggregated WART and the Compulsive Tendencies dimension both evidenced moderate to strong
relationships with negative affect towards work, perceived job demands (which also had a significant
relationship with the Control dimension), and work-life balance. These workaholism criterion categories also
demonstrated moderate relationships with a few of the WorkBat dimensions. Negative affect towards work
shared a moderate relationship with the WorkBat’s Work Enjoyment dimension. The Drive dimension displayed
moderate relationships with both perceived job demands and work-life balance. Although these significant
relationships indicate that both the WART and the WorkBat seek to assess a few of the same correlates of
workaholism, they also highlight the absence of strong relationships between these measures’ dimensions and
the criterion variables. For example, while a strong relationship emerged between the aggregated WorkBat
dimension and work effort, all of the individual WorkBat dimensions and all of the WART dimensions displayed
very weak or non-significant relationships with work effort. In addition, the Compulsive Tendencies dimension
of the WART demonstrated a strong relationship with need for power, yet none of the other dimensions of either
measure have been researched in relation to need for power.
The lack of consistency in the relationships between these two workaholism measures and the criterion variables
of interest underscores the need for a standardized definition of workaholism. Although the individual WorkBat
dimensions evidenced few meaningful relationships with the criterion variables, the aggregated WorkBat was
strongly correlated with job characteristics, job involvement, job stress, mental health, professional success, and
work effort. In contrast, each of the WART dimensions displayed at most one strong relationship with various
criterion variables. The few moderate effects shared among the WART dimensions appeared to focus upon
workaholic correlates such as positive and negative affect towards work and non-work, perceived job demands,
and work-life balance. These discrepancies in the criteria with which each measure evidenced a strong
relationship suggest that these measures assess qualitatively different traits that fit their varying definitions of
workaholism. The WART and the WorkBat appear to use two different working definitions of workaholism,
which has resulted in the measurement of uniquely different aspects of the disorder.
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 13
In order to achieve more consistent results across workaholism studies, it is critical for a universal definition to
first be established. A potential premise for such a definition could be the few criterion categories across both the
WART and WorkBat measures that have resulted in promising relationships between the measures’ dimensions
and the workaholism correlates. For example, the aggregated WART and the aggregated WorkBat both
evidenced significant correlations with mental health (r = .67 and .58, respectively). Similarly, the aggregated
WART and the Control dimension of the WorkBat both displayed strong correlations with job stress (r = .54
and .58, respectively).A proposed definition could examine these common relationships with workaholism
correlates across workaholism measures and use this as the basis for a consistent characterization of
workaholism.
As with any disease, condition, or disorder, the symptoms and their effects must first be determined in order to
better understand its causes and treatment. Current research seems to have adopted a retrospective approach in
that it has invented a condition, workaholism, and is now attempting to unearth symptoms that could possibly
engender this condition. Workaholism should be treated no differently than any other medical condition in that
the addictive behaviors must first be identified and agreed upon, and their influence on the lives of those affected
must be examined before the causes of the addiction and the treatment of it may be determined. Presently, it has
been well established that particular individuals are addicted to working in a way that negatively affects their
psychological, physical, and social health. The current challenge for researchers is to identify and reach a
consensus regarding what these psychological, physical, and social health issues are and how they manifest
themselves in individuals as possible symptoms of workaholism. Only after the symptoms of the disorder are
ascertained can researchers determine a single, coherent, and conclusive definition of workaholism for which
they may develop measures to ease the process of making an accurate diagnosis.
4.1 Limitations
As with any research methodology, certain limitations and weaknesses pertained to this meta-analysis. Language
barriers prevented the inclusion of international research that had not been transcribed into English. Also, only
those studies that reported correlation coefficients and sample sizes were garnered in this meta-analysis, as those
values were necessary in order to compare and analyze data across all studies. Furthermore, the demographics of
the participants in the individual studies were collected but could not be used in the analysis due to the lack of
consistency in the units of measurements across all studies. For example, some studies reported participants’ job
type by directly stating their occupation, whereas other studies classified occupations as ‘blue collar’ or ‘white
collar’ without specifying the actual occupations. Variance in the method of providing demographics was too
great to derive statistically meaningful results, and hence, was not included in the analysis. Other limitations
included subjective coding of criterion measures into general categories. Although inter-rater reliability was
confirmed, the categories were still subjectively determined for comparison purposes. Finally, as with all
meta-analytical studies, the quality of the results is only as good as the original data from which they are drawn.
Although precautions were taken by omitting studies that did not feature quality research designs, this too was a
subjective task, and all such studies may not have been removed.
4.2 Future Research
Future research would benefit from focusing upon the personality traits and situational characteristics that
influence the manifestation of problematic symptoms that may lead to work addiction. Rather than focus
research upon one’s own definition of workaholism and investigate criterion variables that fit this definition, it
would be advantageous for researchers to first identify the specific behaviors that engender addictive work
patterns and the way in which these addictive cycles influence individuals and the organizations for which they
work. Only after examining the foundation of addictive work behaviors can a definition regarding the positive or
negative effects of workaholism upon an individual’s life and the organization employing them be meaningfully
determined. It is imperative to the study of workaholism that a single collective definition is constructed in order
to develop measures that can accurately and reliably identify the disorder. In an effort to develop a universally
agreed-upon definition, researchers must first establish the ways in which individuals are physically, socially,
and psychologically impacted by their excessive work habits. The condition of workaholism clearly exists, but
future research must take a step back and first establish a foundation of symptoms and outcomes of the disorder
before diagnostic measures, such as the WART and WorkBat, may be used to pursue the causes and treatment of
workaholism.
5. Conclusions
The study of workaholism is still in its infancy and will require significant collaboration among researchers and
modifications of current definitions in order to achieve a coherent conceptual description. Currently the WART
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
14
and the WorkBat constitute two reliable measures of workaholism, but their practical applicability and empirical
utility will be hindered until an agreed-upon definition of workaholism is attained. As evidenced by the results,
each of these measures correlate with fundamentally different workaholism components, suggesting the need for
a consistent definition of workaholism. This meta-analysis has undertaken the first step in this process by
identifying the shortcomings of current workaholism measures and addressing focal needs for future research.
References
American Psychological Association. (1887-2009). PsycINFO [Online]. Washington, D.C.: Author [Producer].
NC Live [Distributor].
Andreassen, C., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to work,
'workaholism', and health. Psychology & Health, 22, 615-629.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14768320600941814
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 52-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.52
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. (2009). Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover-crossover
perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 23-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013290
Bonebright, C., & Clay, D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, Life satisfaction,
and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 469. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier
database. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.4.469
Booth-Kewley, S., & Friedman, H. (1987). Psychological predictors of heart disease: A quantitative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 343-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.343
Brady, B., Vodanovich, S., & Rotunda, R. (2008). The impact of workaholism on work-family conflict, job
satisfaction, and perception of leisure activities. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11, 241-263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150802371781
Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Cooper, C., & Poelmans, S. (2009). Workplace psychological health:
Current research and practice. Northampton, MA US: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Buelens, M., & Poelmans, S. (2004). Enriching the Spence and Robbins' typology of workaholism: Demographic,
motivational and organizational correlates. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 440-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410554470
Burke, R. (1999a). It's not how hard you work but how you work hard: Evaluating workaholism components.
International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 225-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021936220220
Burke, R. (1999b). Workaholism and extra-work satisfactions. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
7, 352-364. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028906
Burke, R. (2000). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86(1), 219.
Burke, R. (2001a). Organizational values, work experiences and satisfactions among managerial and
professional women. Journal of Management Development, 20, 346-354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710110695333
Burke, R. (2001b). Predictors of workaholism components and behaviors. International Journal of Stress
Management, 8, 113-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009577230051
Burke, R. (2001c). Workaholism components, job satisfaction, and career progress. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31, 2339-2356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00179.x
Burke, R. (2001d). Workaholism in organizations: the role of organizational values. Personnel Review, 30,
637-645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005977
Burke, R. (2004). Workaholism, self-esteem, and motives for money. Psychological Reports, 94, 457-463.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.2.457-463
Burke, R., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2009). Work motivations, work outcomes, and health: Passion versus addiction.
Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 257-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9697-0
Burke, R., & Koksal, H. (2002). Workaholism among a sample of Turkish managers and professionals: An
exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 91, 60-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.91.5.60-68
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 15
Burke, R., & Matthiesen, S. (2004). Short Communication: Workaholism among Norwegian journalists--
Antecedents and consequences. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation
of Stress, 20, 301-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1025
Burke, R., & Ng, E. (2007). Workaholic behaviors: Do colleagues agree? International Journal of Stress
Management, 14, 312-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.3.312
Burke, R., Koyuncu, M., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2008). Workaholism, work and extra-work satisfactions and
psychological well-being among professors in Turkey. Cross Cultural Management, 15, 353-366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600810914148
Burke, R., Koyuncu, M., Fiksenbaum, L., & Demirer, H. (2009). Time affluence, material affluence and
well-being among Turkish managers. Cross Cultural Management, 16, 386-397.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600911000357
Burke, R., Matthiesen, S., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 1223-1233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.017
Burke, R., Oberklaid, F., & Burgess, Z. (2003). Organizational values, work experiences, and satisfactions
among Australian psychologists. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 123-135. Retrieved
from PsycINFO database. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028966
Burke, R., Richardsen, A., & Mortinussen, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of Spence and Robbins' measures
of workaholism components. Psychological Reports, 91, 1098-1104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.91.8.1098-1104.
Burke, R., Richardsen, A., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian managers: Work and
well-being outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 459-470.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410554489
Chamberlin, C., & Zhang, N. (2009). Workaholism, health, and self-acceptance. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 87, 159-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00563.x
Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., Schroeder, M. L., & Irish, S. L. (1996). Convergence of two systems for assessing
specific traits of personality disorder. Psychological Assessment, 8, 294–303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.3.294
Clark, L.A, McEwen, J.L., Collard, L.M., & Hickok, L.G. (1993). Symptoms and traits of personality disorder:
Two new methods for their assessment. Psychological Assessment, 5, 81-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.81
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Feeney, M., & Bozeman, B. (2009). Staying late: Comparing work hours in public and nonprofit sectors. The
American Review of Public Administration, 39, 457-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074008327293
Galperin, B., & Burke, R. (2006). Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and workplace destructive
and constructive deviance: An exploratory study. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17, 331-347. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404853
Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291-319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056003613
Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between organizational climate, occupational type and
workaholism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181-188.
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees. International
Journal of Stress Management, 8, 129-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009529314121
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2004). Effects of economic environmental changes on job demands and
workaholism in Japan. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 537-548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410554533
Liang, Y., & Chu, C. (2009). Personality traits and personal and organizational inducements: Antecedents of
workaholism. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 645-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.5.645
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
16
Lounsbury, J., Gibson, L., & Hamrick, F. (2004). The development and validation of a personological measure
of work drive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 427-451.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028445.29004.d1
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5,
133-153.
McMillan, J., & Northern, N. (1995). Organizational codependency: The creation and maintenance of closed
systems. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 6–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318995009001002
McMillan, L., & O'Driscoll, M. (2004). Workaholism and health: Implications for organizations. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 17, 509-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410554515
McMillan, L., Brady, E., O'Driscoll, M., & Marsh, N. (2002). A multifaceted validation study of Spence and
Robbins' (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
357-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317902320369758
McMillan, L., O'Driscoll, M., & Brady, E. (2004). The impact of workaholism on personal relationships. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 171-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001697729
McMillan, L., O'Driscoll, M., Marsh, N., & Brady, E. (2001). Understanding workaholism: Data synthesis,
theoretical critique, and future design strategies. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 69-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009573129142
Mudrack, P. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic behavioral
tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490-508.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410554506
Mudrack, P., & Naughton, T. (2001). The assessment of workaholism as behavioral tendencies: Scale
development and preliminary empirical testing. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 93-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009525213213
Nagy, S., & Davis, L. (1985). Burnout: A comparative analysis of personality and environmental variables.
Psychological Reports, 57, 1319-1326. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.3f.1319
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K., & Feldman, D. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism:
A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 111-136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.424
Niehuis, S. (2007). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Marital Disillusionment Scale. Psychological
Reports, 100, 203-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.100.1.203-207
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World. Retrieved from
http://www.oates.org/cos/oateslibrary/books/confessions/weo-coaw-00a.html
Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group &
Organization Management, 26, 369-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601101263007
Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. (2006). The interface between workaholism and work-family conflict: A
review and conceptual framework. Organization Development Journal, 24, 84-92.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of
excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.70
Robinson, B. (1999). The work addiction risk test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 88, 199.
Robinson, B. (2000). A typology of workaholics with implications for counselors. Journal of Addictions &
Offender Counseling, 21, 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1874.2000.tb00150.x
Robinson, B. (2000). Workaholism: Bridging the gap between workplace, sociocultural, and family research.
Journal of Employment Counseling, 37, 31-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2000.tb01024.x
Robinson, B. (2001). Workaholism and family functioning: A profile of familial relationships, psychological
outcomes, and research considerations. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 23,
123-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007880301342
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 11; June 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 17
Robinson, B., & Carroll, J. (1999). Assessing the offspring of workaholic parents: The Children of Workaholics
Screening Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1127-1134.
Robinson, B., Flowers, C., & Carroll, J. (2001). Work stress and marriage: A theoretical model examining the
relationship between workaholism and marital cohesion. International Journal of Stress Management, 8,
165-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009533415030
Robinson, B., Flowers, C., & Ng, K. (2006). The relationship between workaholism and marital disaffection:
Husbands' perspective. The Family Journal, 14, 213-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480706287269
Robinson, B., & Post, P. (1997). Risk of addiction to work and family functioning. Psychological Reports, 81,
91.
Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J. (2004). Employees' motivational orientation and well-being at work: A
person-oriented approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 471-489.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410554498
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., Van der Heijden, F., & Prins, J. (2009). Workaholism, burnout and well-being among
junior doctors: The mediating role of role conflict. Work & Stress, 23, 155-172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370902834021
Schaufeli, W., Taris, T., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a
kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57,
173-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x
Scott, K., Moore, K., & Miceli, M. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism.
Human Relations, 50, 287-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000304
Senholzi, M. (2008). The validation and generalization of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI).
Dissertation Abstracts International. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Smith, B. (2007). Stroking the compulsion to work. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2008). Workaholism as discretionary time investment at work: An experience-sampling
study. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 109-127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00270.x
Spence, J., & Robbins, A. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 58, 160-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5801_15
Spruell, G. (1987). Work fever. Training & Development Journal, 41, 41-45.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E., & Bartol, K. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It's not the money, it's the
motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959-971.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.959
Taris, T., Beckers, D., Verhoeven, L., Geurts, S., Kompier, M., & van der Linden, D. (2006). Recovery
opportunities, work--home interference, and well-being among managers. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 15, 139-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320500513889
Taris, T., Schaufeli, W., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and
Implications for Job Strain and Work-Nonwork Conflict. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,
37-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00195.x
Taris, T., Schaufeli, W., van Hoogenhuyze, C., & Zon, A. (2003). Werkverslaving, stress en gezondheid:
Ontwikkeling en validatie van eenNederlandseworkaholisme-schaal. English Title: Work addiction, stress
and health: Development and validation of a Dutch Workaholism scale. Gedrag & Gezondheid:
Tijdschriftvoor Psychologie en Gezondheid, 31, 2-18.
Vodanovich, S., Piotrowski, C., & Wallace, J. (2007). The relationship between workaholism and health: A
report of negative findings. Organization Development Journal, 25, 70-75. Retrieved from PsycINFO
database.
Wittenberg, K., & Norcross, J. (2001). Practitioner perfectionism: Relationship to ambiguity tolerance and work
satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 1543-1550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1116
Studies providing data included in the meta-analysis.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Scott A. Methe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Scott A. Methe on Feb 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
