Articles

The Relationship Between Workaholism and Marital Disaffection: Husbands’ Perspective
Bryan E. Robinson Claudia Flowers Kok-Mun Ng University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Previous research suggests that wives of workaholics experience greater marital estrangement and less positive feelings than do wives of nonworkaholics. This study examined husbands’ perception of marital disaffection and the relationship to their wives’ workaholic tendencies. A random sample of 272 male members of the American Counseling Association were mailed a survey that examined their spouses’ workaholic behavior, marital disaffection, locus of control, and positive and negative affects. The results suggest that workaholism is positively related to martial disaffection (p < .01). The most important workaholism domains for predicting martial disaffection were overcontrolling behavior (r = .36) and impaired communication (r = .38). The results underscore the need for greater clinical awareness of marital problems associated with workaholic tendency. Keywords: workaholism; marital disaffection; gender work issues; family functioning

A

lthough the literature is sparse, the research on the psychological and familial correlates of workaholism indicates that workaholism is associated with family dysfunction (Robinson, 2001). The term workaholism has numerous definitions (see Robinson & Flowers, 2004, for a review). It is defined in this article as a compulsive and progressive, potentially fatal disorder characterized by self-imposed demands, compulsive overworking, inability to regulate work habits, and overindulgence in work to the exclusion and detriment of intimate relationships and major life activities (Robinson, 1998a; Robinson & Chase, 2001). Workaholism and Family Functioning The structural and dynamic characteristics of the workaholic family indicate that all family members can be negatively
Authors’ Note: This research was supported in part by funds from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claudia Flowers, Department of Educational Administration, Research, and Technology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001; e-mail: CPFlower@email.uncc.edu.

affected by workaholism and can develop a set of mental health problems of their own (Robinson, 1998d, 2001). The bulk of clinical data (Robinson, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c) and empirical studies (Carroll & Robinson, 2000; Navarrette, 1998; Robinson & Carroll, 1999; Robinson & Kelley, 1998) have focused on adult children of workaholics. Generally, these findings suggest that adult children of workaholics have greater psychological problems and more health complaints than do adult children of nonworkaholics. Although little attention has been paid to the association between workaholism and marital relationship, popular press surveys (Herbst, 1996; Weeks, 1995) and clinical reports (Carroll, 2001; Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998c) compose the literature on spouses of workaholics. Only one study (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2001) in which female spouses were directly assessed on their perspectives of living in an atmosphere of workaholism has been conducted. This study compared a sample of wives of workaholics and wives of nonworkaholics on marital disaffection, positive feelings toward husband, and locus of control. A random sample of 326 participants drawn from the membership list of the American Counseling Association was surveyed. Wives of workaholics reported significantly greater marital disaffection and less positive affect toward husbands and higher external locus of control than did wives of nonworkaholics. Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference between reports of wives of workaholics and wives of nonworkaholics in the number of hours their husband worked (i.e., an average of 9.5 more hours per week). These findings were the first empirical results to corroborate clinical and case study reports. Clinical reports indicate that workaholism, like alcoholism, takes its toll on other family members living with a workaholic (Robinson, 2000a). No empirical research has examined the relationship between workaholism and marital disaffection from the husband’s perspective. The present study sought to address this deficit by examining the

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 14 No. 3, July 2006 213-220 DOI: 10.1177/1066480706287269 © 2006 Sage Publications 213

214

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006

relationship of workaholism to the marital dyad utilizing husbands’ perspective and presenting the results of the first empirical study on the subject. To parallel the previous study of the wives of workaholics, this study was delimited to examining only male and female marital couples and not same-sex couples. Personality and Marital Satisfaction For decades, researchers have found associations between personality variables and marital relationship (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000; Doherty, 1981). Sabatelli (1986) noted that “the importance of these variables for the study of interpersonal relationships is reflected in their consistent influence on the way in which information from one’s social environment is perceived and processed and in turn influences people’s social orientations” (p. 939). Neurotism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and positive expressivity were found significantly related to marital satisfaction (Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004; Olsen, Martin, & Halverson, 1999; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). Among the personality variables, locus of control and affectivity have received a great amount of attention (e.g., Bugaighis, Schumm, Bollman, & Jurich, 1983; Camp & Ganong, 1997; Caughlin et al., 2000; Miller, Lefcourt, Holmes, Ware, & Saleh, 1986; Watson et al., 2000). Locus of control. Locus of control refers to the extent to which people believe the outcomes of events in their lives are attributable to their own actions (Rotter, 1966). Individuals with external locus of control orientations believe that ultimate control of their lives rests outside of themselves, whereas those with internal locus of control believe that outcomes of life events are a function of their own abilities, attributes, and skills. Researchers theorized that persons with an internal locus of control are most willing to invest time, energy, and effort necessary to keep their marital relationships healthy, dynamic, and growing because they believe in a great sense of personal control over the functioning of their close relationships (Camp & Ganong, 1997). Camp and Ganong (1997) noted that findings in the literature on the relationship between locus of control orientation and marital satisfaction have been mixed. For example, Bugaighis et al. (1983) found that the greater the internal locus of control of the wife, the higher the marital satisfaction. But, Miller et al. (1986) reported that general locus of control of individuals did not correlate with their marital satisfaction; however, individuals’ marital locus of control was significantly related to their marital satisfaction in that internality was positively related to reported marital satisfaction. These findings were mainly based on studying individuals and not couples. Hence, Camp and Ganong studied the influence of husband-wife locus-of-control combinations on 137 couples who had been in long-term marriages. Their findings showed that couples who both had internal locus of control were significantly more satisfied with their marriages than

were couples with other locus of control combinations, except those couples of internal husbands and external wives. Internal husbands married to external wives were more satisfied than were all external husbands regardless of who they married. Internal wives married to external husbands were only more satisfied than were individuals in marriages with both external spouses. Camp and Ganong’s findings indicated that an individual’s internality was more important than the partner’s internal locus of control. Also, persons with an internal locus of control, in general, were more satisfied than were persons with an external locus of control, regardless of gender or partner locus of control. Smolen and Spiegel’s (1987) findings support the view that, in husbands, internality of locus of control serves to buffer the effects of marital conflict on marital satisfaction. Robinson, Carroll, et al. (2001) found that women with workaholic spouses reported greater marital disaffection and greater external locus of control compared to women with nonworkaholic spouses. However, there is a gap in the literature that specifically addresses the experience of men married to workaholic spouses. Affectivity. Affectivity is an emotion-based trait dimension (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) that creates a disposition to experience emotions influencing cognition and self-concept. Affectivity is theorized to have two independent dimensions: positive and negative. Positive affectivity is the tendency to experience positive emotional states and negative affectivity, negative ones. Persons with high negative affectivity tend to perceive themselves and the world more negatively. They also tend to experience greater distress than do low-negative affectivity persons, even in the absence of stressors (Watson & Clark, 1984). Watson et al. (2000) found that negative affectivity and positive affectivity were consistent predictors of relationship satisfaction among married and dating men and women. Negative affectivity was negatively correlated to relationship satisfaction, whereas positive affectivity was positively correlated to relationship satisfaction; the correlations appeared to be stronger among married women and men. Davila, Bradbury, and Fincham (1998) also found that, for both wives and husbands, negative affectivity was negatively correlated to marital satisfaction. Previous research suggests that wives of workaholics had a much lower positive feeling toward their spouse than did wives of nonworkaholics (Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001). However, there is a lack of literature that examines the difference of affectivity between men who have married workaholic and nonworkaholic spouses. Also, no study has addressed the relationships among husbands’ affectivity, their spouses’ work habits, and their marital satisfaction. Research Questions This study examined the relationship of wives’ workaholism to marital disaffection, locus of control, and affectivity from

Robinson et al. / WORKAHOLISM AND MARITAL DISAFFECTION

215

the husbands’ perspective. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What relationships exist among workaholism, marital disaffection, locus of control, positive affect, and negative affect? 2. Do the subscales of workaholism, compulsive tendency, controlling behavior, impaired communication, inability to delegate, and self-worth predict marital disaffection after controlling for locus of control, positive affect, and negative affect?

METHOD Participants From the membership list of the American Counseling Association, 1,000 were randomly selected. Contact with the selected respondents was attempted through a series of two waves of mailing. A total of 376 surveys were returned, resulting in a 37.6% return rate. Respondents who were never married or whose spouse did not work were excluded from the analyses, resulting in a total of 272 participants included in all analyses. The male participants had an average age of 49.3 years (SD = 9.5), ranging from 26 to 69 years. Respondents had been married an average of 17.6 years (SD = 10.7), ranging from less than 1 year to 40 years. The respondents had an average of 19.6 (SD = 3.1, range 16-24) years of education. The ethnicity of the respondents was predominantly White (n = 244, 89.7%), followed by African American (n = 9, 3.3%), Hispanic (n = 7, 2.6%), Asian (n = 3, 1.1%), and Other (n = 7, 2.6%). The spouses of respondents had an average age of 46.8 (SD = 9.2) and had an average of 17.0 (SD = 2.8) years of education. The spouses averaged 41.0 (SD = 10.5, range 10-65) hours at work per week. Instruments Work Addiction Risk Test (WART). The WART (Robinson, 1999) is a 25-item inventory that measures addictive working patterns. Respondents rate items on a 4-point scale ranging from never true (1) to always true (4) according to how well each item describes their work habits. Six scores can be calculated from the WART, five subscale scores and an overall score. The five subscales are (a) compulsive tendencies, (b) control, (c) impaired communication, (d) inability to delegate, and (e) self-worth. The subscale scores are calculated by averaging the item values within each subscale. The overall score is calculated by summing across all the items; the higher the score, the greater the level of workaholic behaviors. Several studies have examined the reliability of scores from the WART. In one study, the test-retest reliability coefficients was .85, and Cronbach’s alpha was .85 (Robinson, Post, & Khakee, 1992). In another study using a sample of 442 respondents from diverse groups, the split-half reliability was .85 (Robinson & Post, 1995). In assessing the

validity of scores from the WART, the scales demonstrated face validity: overdoing, self-worth, control or perfectionism, intimacy, and future reference or mental preoccupation (Robinson & Post, 1994). Twenty psychotherapists critically examined the 25 WART items for content validity. They were instructed to identify the 25 items from a list of 35 test items that most accurately measured workaholism (Robinson & Phillips, 1995). The authors reported high alignment of the items for the domain of workaholism. Concurrent validity was investigated by correlating the scores on the WART with four scales on the Jenkins Activity Survey. The correlation coefficients between the WART and four scales ranged from .20 to .50 (Robinson, 1996). Scores on the WART also correlated .40 with generalized anxiety on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Construct validity of scores from the WART was examined by analyzing the underlying dimensions of the WART and investigating the accuracy of the WART scores to discriminate between workaholics and a control group (Flowers & Robinson, 2002). The results suggest that workaholism, as measured by the WART, is not a unidimensional construct. Five subscales were identified, and the WART scores produced an 88.5% correct classification rate. Marital Disaffection Scale (MDS). The MDS (Kayser, 1996; Kersten, 1990) is a 21-item inventory that assesses the components of emotional estrangement in marriage. The scale measures the loss of emotional attachment, decline in caring, and loss of desire for emotional intimacy with one’s partner. Respondents rate items on a 4-point scale ranging from not at all true (1) to very true (4). Eleven reversal items were recoded in the direction of higher scores meaning higher martial disaffection. Scores on the MDS can range from 21 to 84. A concurrent validity study indicated that there was a statistically significant positive relationship (r = .93, p < .001) between the MDS and Snyder and Regts’ (1982) scale of disaffection. Moreover, the MDS correlated inversely with general questions on martial happiness (r = –.56) and marital closeness (r = –.86). Internal reliability, as measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, was .97. A significant correlation was also found between the respondents’ overall level of disaffection and their participation in counseling (r = .61, p < .001). Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale. The NowickiStrickland Locus of Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) is considered to be the best general measure of internal or external locus of control from grade three through college. A total of 40 questions are answered either yes or no and the respondents’ perceptions are examined concerning the control they believe they have over events in their lives. Items are scored in an external direction; thus, higher scores indicate an external locus of control, and lower scores indicate an internal locus of control. The scale was revised for use with adults by deleting items about parents, leaving 26 questions. Split-half reliability for the scale was .81, and test-retest reliability was .71 for high school students.

216

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006

TABLE 1 Coefficient Alphas, Correlation Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations for the WART, Marital Disaffection, Locus of Control, Positive and Negative Affects, and Hours Worked per Week
WART WART Disaff LOC Positive Negative Hours worked M SD .90** .36** –.03** –.08** .13** .18** 49.63 10.85 Disaff .68** .07** –.10** .19** .02** 41.71 9.54 LOC Positive Negative Hours Worked

.40* –.02* .12* .01* 5.07 3.24

.84** –.19** .01** 3.83 0.50

.72** –.04** 1.82 0.60

—a 41.04 10.47

NOTE: Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal. WART is Work Addiction Risk Test. Disaff is marital disaffection. LOC is locus of control. a. Only 1 item in the scale. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Moreover, construct validity was investigated between the Nowicki-Strickland adult scales and the Rotter Scale and was found to be significant in two studies with college students (r = .61, p < .01; r = .38, p < .01; Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Positive affect reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. High positive affect scores indicate a state of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement, whereas low positive affect scores are characterized by sadness and lethargy (Watson et al., 1988). In contrast, negative affect is a general dimension of subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement that subsumes a variety of aversive mood states, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness, with low negative affect being a state of calmness and serenity (Watson et al., 1988). Watson et al. (1988) developed the PANAS as a simple and short method of measuring positive affects and negative affects. Respondents are asked to rate how they feel on average on 20 descriptors, 10 positive and 10 negative. A 5-point rating scale was used to assess each descriptor: very slightly or not at all (1), a little (2), moderately (3), quite a bit (4), and very much (5). Watson et al. (1988) reported alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .84 to .90 and test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from .39 to .71. The intercorrelation between the two scales, positive affect and negative affect, ranged from –.12 to –.23. Principal factor analyses suggested two large factors, which accounted for 75.4% of the common variance. Convergent correlations ranged from .76 to .92, and the discriminant coefficients had values close to zero. Procedures Each prospective respondent was mailed a letter containing the general nature of the study with an invitation to participate, a consent form, demographic form, and instrument package. The demographic form included items that asked the respondents to identify their and their spouse’s year of birth, race, number of years with current spouse, and number of

years of education. Respondents were asked to assess their current or most recent spouse’s work habits (using the WART). In addition, they were asked to rate their current or most recent marriage in terms of emotional closeness toward spouse (using the MDS). Next the participants were asked to complete the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale on themselves and the positive affect or negative affect as measured by the PANAS. A business reply envelope was provided for return of the completed material. Two weeks after the initial mailing, postcards were mailed to thank those participants who returned the questionnaire and remind those who had not returned the questionnaire to do so. RESULTS To examine the relationships among the variables of workaholism, martial disaffection, locus of control, negative affect, and positive affect, correlational analyses were conducted. The correlation coefficients, coefficient alphas, means, and standard deviations for WART, martial disaffection, locus of control, negative affect, positive affect, and spouse’s hours worked per week are reported in Table 1. The reliability coefficients (see diagonal of the matrix in Table 1) ranged from .40 (locus of control) to .90 (WART). Workaholism was positively related to marital disaffection (r = .38, p < .01), negative affect (r = .13, p < .05), and number of hours worked per week (r = .18, p < .01). Negative affect was positively related to marital disaffection (r = .19, p < .01) and external locus of control (r = .12, p < .05) and inversely related to positive affect (r = –.13, p < .01). No other statistically significant relationships were found. The correlation coefficients for the relationships between the subscales of workaholism and marital disaffection, locus of control, positive affects and negative affects, and hours worked per week, and coefficient alpha, means, and standard deviations for workaholism subscales are reported in Table 2. Coefficient alpha for the workaholism subscales ranged from .53 to .85. All the workaholism subscales were positively

Robinson et al. / WORKAHOLISM AND MARITAL DISAFFECTION

217

TABLE 2 Correlation Coefficients Between the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) Subscales and Marital Disaffection, LOC, Positive, and Negative Affects, and Hours Worked per Week and WART Subscales Coefficient Alpha, Means, and Standard Deviations
WART Subscales Compul Disaff LOC Positive affect Negative affect Hours worked Coefficient α M SD .19** –.09 –.03 .08 .23 .84 2.08 0.56 Control .36** < .00 –.10 .21** .09** .85 2.02 0.55 Impair .38** .12* –.12* .23** .06** .62 1.60 0.47 Delegate .16** .02 –.03 –.03 .09 —a 2.50 0.66 Self-Worth .15* –.04 .09 .14* .13* .53 2.37 0.60

NOTE: LOC is locus of control. Compul is compulsive tendencies. Impair is impaired communication. Delegate is inability to delegate. a. Only 1 item in the scale. *p < .05. **p < .01.

related to marital disaffection, ranging from .15 to .38. Locus of control was related to impaired communication (r = .12, p < .05); positive affect was inversely related to impaired communication (r = –.12, p < .05); negative affect was positively related to control (r = .21, p < .01), impaired communication (r = .23, p < .01), and self-worth (r = .14, p < .01); and hours worked per week was positively related to compulsive behavior (r = .23, p < .01) and self-worth (r = .13, p < .05). To examine the unique contribution of workaholism in the explanation of marital disaffection, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. Variables that explain marital disaffection were entered in two steps. In Step 1, marital disaffection was the criterion variable and (a) locus of control, (b) positive affect, and (c) negative affect were the predictor variables. In Step 2, the subscales of the WART were entered into the Step 1 equation. Before the hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed, the predictor variables were examined for collinearity. Results of the variance inflation factor (all less than 2.0) and collinearity tolerance (all greater than .76) suggest that the estimated βs are well established in the following regression model. The results of Step 1 indicated that the variance accounted for (R2) with the first three predictor variables (i.e., locus of control, positive affects, and negative affects) equaled .03 (adjusted R2 = .02), which was significantly different from zero, F(3, 297) = 3.08, p < .05. Negative affect was the only statistically significant predictor variable, β = .13, p < .05. In Step 2, the five subscales of the WART were entered into the regression equation. The change in variance accounted for (∆R2) was equal to .17, resulting in the total variance accounted for equal to .20, which was significantly different from zero, F(8, 292) = 3.08, p < .05. The unstandardized regression coefficients (B) and intercept, the standardized regression coefficients (β), and semipartial correlations (sri) for the full model are reported in Table 3. Only two of the subscales of workaholism contributed

significantly to the explanation of marital disaffection, namely control and impaired communication, with semipartial correlations of .18 and .21, respectively. DISCUSSION The findings of the present study of husbands of workaholics support previous research in which women who identified their husbands as workaholics also reported greater marital disaffection and less positive feelings toward their spouse (Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001). The correlational findings in the present study between workaholism and marital disaffection, negative affect, and number of hours worked per week suggest that the strength and cohesion of a marriage is associated with the presence or absence of excessive working on the part of one’s spouse. Moreover, the two most significant features of workaholism relating to marital disaffection were impaired communication and overcontrolling behaviors, aspects of a marriage that can lead to problems in marital cohesion (Robinson, Flowers, et al., 2001). These findings corroborate what marital experts have contended for years: that control, as exemplified through struggles in marriage (Hendrix, 1988) and spousal withdrawal (Gottman, 1999), is an indicator of marital disintegration and separation. There were differences between the findings from this study and earlier research of wives of workaholics. First, wives of workaholics reported higher levels of external locus of control than did wives of nonworkaholics. In this study, there was no relationship between workaholic tendencies of spouses and husbands’ external locus of control. This difference reflects the mixed findings regarding the relationship between these two variables. Camp and Ganong (1997) attributed the differences to possibly conceptual and measurement problems in this body of research. The low to moderate coefficient alpha of the locus of control scores in this study suggests that there was too much random

218

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006

TABLE 3 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients (B) and Intercept, the Standardized β Regression Coefficients (β), Semipartial Correlations (sri), t Values, and p Values for Variables as Predictor of Marital Disaffection
Work Addiction Risk Test Subscales Zero-Order r Compul LOC Positive affect Negative affect Compulsive Control Impair Delegate Self-worth Intercept R2 Control Impair Delegate β .03 –.04 .08 –.09 .25** .27** .09 –.06

B
0.08 –0.72 1.18 –1.52 4.15 5.28 1.28 –0.88

sr .03 –.04 .07 –.07 .18 .21 .09 –.05

.58** .45** .25** .38** 27.17 .20

.54** .21** .46**

.21** .28**

.09**

NOTE: LOC is locus of control. Compul is compulsive tendencies. Impair is impaired communication. Delegate is inability to delegate. **p < .01.

variability in this measure for this population of respondents. The development of a more accurate measure of locus of control for this population may make the measure more sensitive to potential relationships with other variables. A more context-specific locus of control measure may be more suited to help reveal the relationship between marital satisfaction and locus of control (Miller et al., 1986). Second, there was no relationship between positive affect and workaholism found in this study; neither was there a relationship between positive affect and marital disaffection, as in the previous study examining wives of workaholics (Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001). Negative affect was found positively correlated to workaholism and marital disaffection. However, findings in this study corroborate with the literature that shows that negative affect was a predictor of marital disaffection (e.g., Davila et al., 1998; Watson et al., 2000). The findings presented here support a growing body of literature that suggests that the strength and cohesion of a marriage is associated with the presence or absence of workaholism (Carroll & Robinson, 2000; Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001; Robinson, Flowers, et al., 2001). Previous investigations indicate that workaholism, like alcoholism, may take its toll on family functioning. It has been reported that workaholics described a breakdown in their family’s functioning as the level of workaholism increased (Robinson & Post, 1995), and workaholics reported greater health problems than did control groups (Spence & Robbins, 1992). IMPLICATIONS Workaholism and marital relationships continues to be one of the most ignored areas of clinical and empirical research. Well-meaning clinicians compound the problem by minimizing the negative effects that workaholic behaviors have on a

relationship. This tendency is partly because of cultural maxims that extol the positive features of workaholism while failing to cite the negative aspects (Robinson & Chase, 2001). The results of this study underscore the critical need for greater clinical awareness of marital problems associated with workaholism and the need to treat it as a marital issue and not an individual problem. We recommend that marriage and family therapists screen for the presences of workaholism, just as they would alcoholism. Expectations of change in workaholics require that family members who have built patterns of reactions to their loved one’s workaholism be prepared to change. Family practitioners should be prepared for resistance on both sides. Complaints and cynicism about the workaholic’s constant working and family absence often become habitual. As the workaholic attempts to reconnect to family, some resistance to integration may be present for some family members. LIMITATIONS It should be kept in mind that correlation does not imply causation. The results from this correlational study, as with any correlational study, do not ensure a causal relationship. Although correlational findings are necessary, it is not sufficient for a causal relationship. Research that examines temporal sequencing of workaholic behaviors and marital disaffection would give greater insight into cause and effect relationships. The information available on workaholism is based predominantly on self-report data, namely self-administered questionnaires or face-to-face interviews with convenience samples. These limited approaches, although useful for building a knowledge base, have led to a need for more sampling and methodological specificity. It is important that future

Robinson et al. / WORKAHOLISM AND MARITAL DISAFFECTION

219

research studies be well planned and include randomized, representative samples. A multimethod approach (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998) to data collection in which observational techniques are used in conjunction with the traditional self-report techniques will yield more reliable information and lead to a better understanding of workaholic family functioning. Moreover, it is essential that future inquiries employ a systems-oriented approach and assess perceptions and behaviors of spouses and children of workaholics. Because of the return rate (37%), there is potential for sampling bias. Because the survey was anonymous, there was no attempt to contact nonrespondents; therefore, it was not possible to evaluate differences between respondents and nonrespondents. Furthermore, the sampling frame used for this study, males in the American Counseling Association, represents a highly educated group of males. The findings of this study may not represent those for less-educated males. Also, the findings may not represent minority groups because the sample was predominantly White. Given these limitations, the findings in this study may not generalize to other socioeconomic or racial backgrounds or to same-sex partners. It is critical that researchers examining family dynamics give more attention to the subject of workaholism to achieve a better understanding of this condition. The findings presented here are sufficient evidence to warrant further research on workaholism and its impact on marital adjustment factors to determine more clearly the risks and consequences of spousal workaholic habits. REFERENCES
Bugaighis, M. A., Schumm, W. R., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1983). Locus of control and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 114, 275-279. Camp, P. L., & Ganong, L. H. (1997). Locus of control and marital satisfaction in long-term marriages. Families in Society, 78, 624-631. Carroll, J. J. (2001). Spouses of high-performing men: A profile of marital adjustment and psychological outcomes. In B. E. Robinson & N. Chase (Eds.), High performing families: Causes, consequences, and clinical solutions (pp. 23-40). Washington, DC: American Counseling Association. Carroll, J. J., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification among adults as related to parental workaholism and alcoholism. The Family Journal, 8, 360-367. Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326-336. Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. (1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 5, 467-484. Doherty, W. J. (1981). Locus of control differences and marital dissatisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 369-377. Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 3, 151-192. Flowers, C. P., & Robinson, B. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 517-526.

Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564-574. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Crown. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5-22. Hendrix, H. (1988). Getting the love you want: A guide for couples. New York: Henry Holt. Herbst, A. C. (1996, November). Married to the job. McCall’s Magazine, pp. 130-134. Kayser, K. (1996). The Marital Disaffection Scale: An inventory for assessing emotional estrangement in marriage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 83-88. Kersten, K. K. (1990). The process of marital disaffection: Interventions at various stages. Family Relations, 39, 257-265. Miller, P. C., Lefcourt, H. M., Holmes, J. G., Ware, E. E., & Saleh, W. E. (1986). Marital locus of control and marital problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 161-169. Navarrette, S. (1998). An empirical study of adult children of workaholics: Psychological functioning and intergenerational transmission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Graduate Institute, Westwood. Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154. Olsen, S. R., Martin, P., & Halverson, C. F. (1999). Personality, marital relationship, and parenting in two generations of mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 457-476. Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 20, 89-96. Robinson, B. E. (1996). Concurrent validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test as a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 79, 1313-1314. Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University Press. Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Children of workaholics: What practitioners need to know. Journal of the Child and Youth Care, 12, 75-85. Robinson, B. E. (1998c). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical implications for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 35, 260-268. Robinson, B. E. (1998d). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 63-73. Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199-210. Robinson, B. E. (2000a). Adult children of workaholics: Clinical and empirical research with implications for family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11, 15-26. Robinson, B. E. (2000b). A typology of workaholism with implications for counselors. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 21, 34-48. Robinson, B. E. (2000c). Workaholism: Bridging the gap between workplace, sociocultural, and family research. Journal of Employment Counseling, 37, 31-46. Robinson, B. E. (2001). Workaholism and family functioning: A profile of familial relationships, psychological outcomes, and research considerations. Contemporary Family Research, 23, 123-135. Robinson, B. E., & Carroll, J. (1999). Assessing the offspring of workaholics: The children of workaholics screening test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1127-1134. Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2001). Marital estrangement, positive affect, and locus of control among spouses of workaholics and spouses of nonworkaholics: A national study. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 397-410. Robinson, B. E., & Chase, N. (2001). High-performing families: Causes, consequences, and clinical solutions. Washington, DC: American Counseling Association.

220

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006

Robinson, B. E., & Flowers, C. (2004). Symptoms of workaholism: Pop psychology or private pain? In R. H. Coombs (Ed), Handbook of Addictive Disorders. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Robinson, B. E., 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(2), 165-175. Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of workaholics: Selfconcept, locus of control, anxiety, and depression. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 223-238. Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 657-658. Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1994). Validity of the Work Addition Risk Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 337-338. Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Split-half reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 76, 1226. Robinson, B. E., Post, P., & Khakee, J. F. (1992). Test-retest reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 926. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609. Sabatelli, R. M. (1986). Locus of control, locus of control differences, and quality of relationship in married dyads. Psychological Reports, 58, 939-945. Smolen, R., & Spiegel, D. (1987). Marital locus of control as a modifier of the relationship between the frequency of provocation by spouse and marital satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 70-80.

Snyder, D. K., & Regts, J. M. (1982). Factor scales for assessing marital disharmony and disaffection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 736-743. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160-178. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68, 413-449. Weeks, D. (1995, June). Cooling off your office affair. NorthWest Airlines World Traveler Magazine, pp. 59-62.

Bryan E. Robinson is professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Claudia Flowers is an associate professor in educational research at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Kok-Mun Ng is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful