The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11: 241–263, 2008

Copyright © The Society of Psychologists in Management

ISSN 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 online
DOI: 10.1080/10887150802371781

The Impact of Workaholism on

1550-3461
1088-7156
HPMJ
The Psychologist-Manager Journal
Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, August 2008: pp. 1–42

Work-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction,

and Perception of Leisure Activities
Becca R. Brady, Stephen J. Vodanovich, and Robert Rotunda
The Impact
Brady, Vodanovich,
of Workaholism
and Rotunda

University of West Florida

Data were collected from university employees (N = 129) and Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM) members (N = 103) to assess the impact of worka-
holism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perceptions of leisure time. The
results, using two different measures of workaholism (Workaholism Battery, Work
Addiction Risk Test), indicated that greater scores on the Workaholic Risk Test were
significantly related to greater work-family conflict and less gratification with leisure
(or nonwork) time. In terms of the Workaholism Battery, high Drive scores were also
found to relate to more work-family conflict. However, Work Enjoyment scores were
associated with less work-family conflict, as well as greater scores indicative of satis-
faction with the job and the work itself. The need to examine various facets of worka-
holism and implications for organizational interventions are discussed.

The goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between workaholism
and several outcomes: (1) work-life conflict, (2) job satisfaction, and (3) enjoyment
of leisure time. The impetus for such an investigation is provided by evidence that
employees in the United States are spending an increasing amount of time at work.
For instance, Austin (2000) has stated that the number of hours worked per week for
U.S. employees rose from 43 to 47 hours during the past decade. Moreover, it has
been reported that employees in professional jobs work anywhere from 50 to 80
hours in a typical workweek (e.g., Brenton & Largent, 1996). Finally, Reiss (2002)
reported that employees in the United States work an average of 1,979 hours a year.

Correspondence should be sent to Stephen J. Vodanovich, Department of Psychology, Bldg.

#41, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514. E-mail:
stevevodanovich.uwf.edu
242 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

Some have indicated that technological advances may be contributing to the

escalation of time spent on work-related activities. Erase-Blunt (2001) reported
that 60% of office workers admitted that while vacationing they take along
mobile technology, 33% check voice mail daily, and more than half of these
respondents telephoned their office at least once daily. Reiss (2002) noted that
20% of U.S. workers go to their jobs when they are ill, injured, or have a medical
appointment. Further, it has been suggested that organizations may play a role in
encouraging this trend. As Burke (2001a) has stated, “Organizations are increas-
ingly making use of technology that reinforces workaholic behaviors” (p. 639).

Definitions of Workaholism
It should be noted that there is a lack of consensus regarding the meaning of
“workaholism,” and this has clouded much of the discourse and research findings
in the area. Consistent with the figures reported above, some definitions have
focused on the amount of time spent at work. For instance, Mosier (1983)
defined workaholics as individuals who work at least 50 hours per week. How-
ever, there is general agreement that conceptualizing workaholism by focusing
solely on time spent at work is inadequate. As Peiperl and Jones (2001) have cau-
tioned “seeking to define workaholism by counting the number of hours that a
person works is both misleading and incomplete” (p. 373).
Machlowitz (1980) stressed that workaholics are best conceptualized by their
attitude toward work, and not by the number of hours spent at work. She also
offered a characterization of workaholism that considered situational requirements.
According to Machlowitz, workaholics are people who “always devote more time
and thoughts to their work than the situation demands” (1980, p.11). Similarly,
Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) described workaholism as the amount of discre-
tionary time spent in work activities, thinking about work when not working, and
working beyond organizational requirements. Porter (1996), in making a distinc-
tion between the tendency to work hard and workaholism, depicted workaholics as
striving to maintain a high level of involvement in work that exceeds the require-
ments for successful task accomplishment. Spence and Robbins (1992) argued that
a workaholic is “highly work involved, feels compelled or driven to work because
of inner pressures, and is low in [his or her] enjoyment of work” (p. 162).
Other definitions have concentrated on the numerous nonwork consequences that
accompany workaholism. These approaches can be considered to reflect an addic-
tion model of the construct and embody the negative connotation often associated
with the term “workaholism.” For example, Oats (1971) defined a workaholic as “a
person whose need for work has become so excessive that it creates a noticeable dis-
turbance or interference with his [or her] bodily health, personal happiness, and
interpersonal relations, and with his smooth social functioning” (p. 4). This concep-
tualization was echoed by Minirth et al. (1981) who described workaholics as
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 243

individuals whose dependence on work activities reveals noticeable disturbances in

other aspects of their lives such as personal feelings and intimacy. Along these lines,
Porter (1996) and Robinson (1989) conceptualized workaholics as those who
neglect extra-work areas (e.g., family, friends, personal health). Moreover, Klaft and
Kleiner (1988) suggested that workaholics are addicted to the work itself and not to
the rewards of work. Congruent with these approaches to workaholism is the
research of Robinson (1989) who posited that “the overabundance of work takes
precedence over everyone and everything else in the lives of workaholics” (p. 42).
Furthermore, Robinson (2000) depicted the characteristics of workaholism as being
similar to that of alcoholism by noting that, "Work addiction is an addiction in the
same way that alcoholism is an addiction. Progressive in nature, it is an unconscious
attempt to resolve unmet psychological needs that have roots in the family of origin
and can lead to unmanageable life, family disintegration, serious health problems,
and even death” (p. 34). The common attributes between workaholism and alcohol-
ism (e.g., withdrawal symptoms, identity issues, rigidity) have also been discussed
by Porter (1996). Finally, Harpaz and Snir (2003) proposed a definition of workaho-
lism that emphasizes behavioral and cognitive aspects of the construct. The authors
conclude that workaholics regularly devote substantial time working and thinking
about work on an ongoing basis. An important aspect of their definition is that work-
aholic behaviors are internally based and are not driven by external needs or organi-
zational requirements (e.g., salary, need for overtime).

Typologies of Workaholism
Spence and Robbins (1992) identified three basic dimensions/measures of wor-
kaholism which are referred to as the “workaholic triad.” These dimensions are
labeled as: (1) work involvement, (2) drive (e.g., strongly motivated to work),
and (3) work enjoyment. Within this framework, workaholics were defined as
being high in work involvement and drive, and low in work enjoyment. Addi-
tional combinations of scores proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992) include
the following worker clusters: relaxed workers, work enthusiasts, unengaged
workers, enthusiastic workaholics, and disenchanted workers. A different typol-
ogy was proposed by Naughton (1987). He identified four types of workaholics
which include: (1) job-involved workaholics, (2) compulsive workaholics,
(3) nonworkaholics, and (4) compulsive nonworkaholics. Scott et al. (1997)
proposed another set of workaholic types which are labeled as: (1) compulsive-
dependent, (2) perfectionist-obsessive, and (3) achievement-oriented.

Correlates of Workaholism
Somewhat surprisingly, the amount of empirical research on the correlates of
workaholism is rather limited. Indeed, much of the literature is theoretical or
244 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

anecdotal in nature (e.g., Fassel, 1990; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Machlowitz, 1980;
Schaef & Fassel, 1998; Scott et al., 1997). Furthermore, it is important to note
that research findings in this area have been impacted by the number and type of
workaholism dimensions assessed, as well as by the measures of the construct
that were employed.
There is general agreement that family members and friends are adversely
affected by the behavior of workaholics. Bartolome (1983) discussed the
estranged nature of families of workaholics, and others have commented on the
marital difficulties that are often experienced by such individuals (e.g., Klaft &
Kleiner, 1988; Spruell, 1987). It has been proposed that the suffering experienced
by children and spouses of workaholics is comparable to the distress felt by
spouses and offspring of alcoholics (Fassel, 1990; Robinson, 1998a, 2000;
Schaef & Fassel, 1998). L’Abate and L’Abate (1981) have suggested that wives
of male workaholics often abandon their own goals while supporting their
husbands’ desires.
It has also been noted that workaholics have difficulty with intimate relation-
ships and have virtually no time for outside interpersonal relations (Killinger,
1991; Minirth et al., 1981; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1998a; Spruell, 1987). Scott
et al. (1997) commented that workaholics are commonly isolated from family
and friends. As these authors observed, workaholics “spend a great deal of time
in work activities when given the discretion to do so, which results in their giving
up important social, family or recreational activities because of work” (p. 292).

Work-Life Conflict
Empirical research has generally concluded that workaholism adversely impacts
relationships and can lead to increased work-family conflict (WFC). The issue of
work-life conflict (or imbalance) has received substantial attention in recent
years (e.g., Frone, 2003; Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003; Hammer et al.,
2002; Lambert et al., 2006). One reason for this interest is the widely accepted
belief that events (both positive and negative) occurring within work and non-
work spheres affect one another (e.g., MacEwen & Barling, 1994), although the
interference of work with nonwork activities appears to be more common (e.g.,
Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Of particular interest to researchers has been the
impact of WFC on various negative outcomes. For instance, studies have found
WFC to be significantly related to indicators of psychological distress (e.g.,
Marks, 1998) and self-reports of diminished physical health (Frone, Russell, &
Barnes, 1996). Indeed, a 4-year longitudinal investigation (Frone, Russell, &
Cooper, 1997) found WFC to be significantly associated with depressed mood,
lower physical health, and heavy alcohol consumption.
Given the above findings, organizations have developed programs (e.g., flexible
work schedules, alternative leave approaches) to assist with the complexities of
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 245

work-life balance (e.g., Frankel, 1998). However, the measurable positive value of
such efforts has been relatively small and rather inconsistent (see Frone, 2003).
Specifically related to workaholism, Snir and Harpaz (2004) reported that
individuals who work significantly more hours per week have lower family cen-
trality scores. Burke (2001) found that workaholics possessed significantly lower
scores on a measure of organizational values supportive of work-family balance.
Bonebright, Clay, and Ankenmann (2000), based on responses from 503 employ-
ees, found that both nonenthusiastic and enthusiastic workaholics possessed
greater work life conflict scores than nonworkaholics. Taris, Schaufeli, and
Verhoeven (2005) found a significant relationship between workaholism scores
and nonwork conflict within a Dutch sample (N = 152) of employed community
volunteers. Moreover, Robinson, Carroll, and Flowers (2001) reported that
female spouses of workaholics viewed their relationship as having more prob-
lems and felt less positively towards their husbands. In one of the few studies that
examined the impact of workaholism on children, it was shown that depression
scores were significantly higher among children with at least one workaholic par-
ent (Carroll & Robinson, 2000). In a series of studies, workaholism (i.e., “addic-
tion” to work) was found to be associated with low satisfaction with relationships
(Burke, Oberklaid, & Burgess, 2004), friends, family, and community (Burke,
1999a), and scores indicative of lower work-family balance (Burke, 2000a).
However, the negative association between workaholism and family/relation-
ship difficulties has not always been found. Burke (2000b) reported that married
and divorced managers had similar workaholism and workaholic behaviors. In a
more direct assessment, McMillan, O’Driscoll, and Brady (2004) found that
workaholic and nonworkaholic dyads expressed similar levels of relationship sat-
isfaction. Consequently, one purpose of the current study was to assess the extent
to which workaholism relates to nonwork conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction
Robinson (1999) and Spence and Robbins (1992) have suggested that workaholics
are generally not content or happy employees, and that the potential negative out-
comes of low job satisfaction in the workplace include: (1) poor job performance,
(2) lack of teamwork, and (3) increased turnover. In contrast, the work of
Machlowitz (1980) and Scott et al. (1997) indicated that workaholics are typi-
cally satisfied with their work. For instance, Machlowitz (1980) discussed that
workaholics tend to be satisfied with work activities partly because job satisfac-
tion is more important to them than satisfaction in nonwork relationships. She
suggested that workaholics often enjoy their work, have satisfying lifestyles, and
that workaholism is not a disease but rather a love of work. A similar view was
offered by Scott et al. (1997), who specified that workaholics are able to enjoy
both work activities and their unique way of life.
246 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

The literature on the association between workaholism and job satisfaction

has shown mixed results and often depends on the number and nature of worka-
holism facets. For instance, Burke, Richardson, and Mortinussen (2004) found
that individuals with high scores on the Work Enjoyment Scale possessed greater
scores on measures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job
involvement, as well as a lower intent to quit the company. McMillan et al.
(2002) found job satisfaction, work involvement, and intrinsic job motivation
scores to be significantly correlated with a revised version of Spence and Robbins’
Work Enjoyment Scale. A revised version of the Drive scale was also found to be
significantly related to work involvement and intrinsic job motivation scores.
Further, Snir and Harpaz (2004) reported that those high in occupational satisfac-
tion worked significantly more hours per week than those with low occupational
satisfaction scores. On the other hand, Burke et al. (2004) found work addicts to
have lower job and career satisfaction scores than those categorized as work
enthusiasts and enthusiastic addicts. Consequently, another objective of the
present research is to examine in more detail the relationship between workaholism
and job satisfaction.

Perceptions of Leisure Time

According to Machlowitz (1980), work and leisure are synonymous to
workaholics. That is, work is how workaholics enjoy themselves. Other
researchers have suggested that workaholics are never at leisure and are often
unable to relax (Oats, 1971; Robinson, 1998b; Scott et al., 1997).
Cherrington (1980) has depicted workaholics as being deficient at spending
time at nonwork activities. He has stated that workaholics are “unable to take
time off or to comfortably divert their interests” (1980, p. 257). Indeed, some
authors have indicated that for workaholics, leisure time is perceived as
unenjoyable or undesirable (e.g., Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990; Kiechel,
1989). However, Burke et al. (2004) found no significant differences in non-
work satisfaction between various types of workaholics (e.g., enthusiastic
workaholics, work addicts). Based on this literature, another purpose of this
research is to examine the relationship between workaholism and perceptions
of leisure time.
The following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 1: High workaholism scores will emerge as significant predictors

of greater work-family conflict.
Hypothesis 2: Greater workaholism scores will significantly predict lower
scores on measures of job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: High workaholism scores will be significant predictors of
greater boredom with leisure and free-time.
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 247

METHOD

Participants
Participants in this study (N = 232) were comprised of 103 working profession-
als who were members of various southeastern chapters of the Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM) and 129 faculty and staff members from a public
university in the southeastern United States. The average age of the university
sample was 47.3 years (SD = 10.58) and 46% of the participants in this sample
were female. In the SHRM sample, the average age was 41.4 years (SD = 9.11)
and 85% of the participants were female.

Procedure
Participants were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a series of online question-
naires which consisted of the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART), Workaholic Triad,
Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS), Free Time Boredom Scale (FTB), Work-Family
Conflict Scale (WFC), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), Work Itself subscale of
the Job Descriptive Index, Job In General scale (JIG), and demographic information
(e.g., age, sex, race). E-mails were sent to both university and SHRM participants that
contained a brief description of the study and included an electronic link to a consent
form, which was then followed by the online questionnaires. Participation in both sam-
ples was voluntary and all data were collected anonymously. No incentives were given
for participation in the study. Data from the questionnaires were returned electronically.

Instruments
Several measures of workaholism have been developed (e.g., Fassel, 1990;
Killinger, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980). However, only the Workaholism Battery
(Work-Bat; Spence & Robbins, 1992) and the Work Addiction Risk Test
(WART; Robinson, 1999) have been systematically used in the literature and
shown to possess desirable psychometric properties. The primary distinction
between the two instruments is that the Work-Bat consists of three separate
scales whose scores are combined to yield an array of workaholic and worker
types, whereas the WART was constructed to yield a single, overall score to
identify individuals with workaholic tendencies. Both instruments were used in
the current study to allow increased confidence in the results obtained.

Workaholism Battery/Workaholic Triad

The scale created by Spence and Robbins (1992) is the most widely utilized
measure of workaholism in the literature (e.g., Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Based on
248 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

previous theoretical writings and observations, Spence and Robbins (1992)

developed items to capture the unique characteristics of workaholics. Specifi-
cally, they constructed three separate scales to measure workaholism: (1) work
involvement, (2) drive, and (3) work enjoyment, which have been referred to as
the Workaholism Battery or Workaholic Triad (Burke, 1999a; 1999b; Ersoy-Kart,
2005). Their initial research (Spence & Robbins, 1992) found empirical support
for the existence of these three scales. In general, subsequent studies have found
support for the Spence and Robbins typology (e.g., Burke, 1999a; Burke, 1999b;
Burke, 2001b), although the viability of the work involvement scale has been
questioned by some researchers (Ersoy-Kart, 2005; McMillan et al., 2002).
The Work Involvement scale consists of eight items and assesses one’s self-
reported tendency to become overly involved at work (e.g., “I get bored and rest-
less on vacations when I haven’t anything productive to do”). The Drive Scale is
designed to measure the extent to which individuals feel driven to work and con-
sists of seven items such as “I feel obligated to work hard, even when it’s not
enjoyable.” Finally, the Work Enjoyment Scale assesses how much individuals
enjoy work on a regular basis and is comprised of 10 items (e.g., “I lose track of
time when I am engaged on a project”). All three scales are arranged on a five-
point Likert-type scale with anchors ranging from 1 (“Not Very True of Me”) to
5 (“Very True of Me”).
Categories of workaholism are derived on the basis of either high or low
scores on the Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoyment scales. Workaholics
are identified by high scores (above the sample mean) on the Work Involvement
and Drive Scales and a low score (below the sample mean) on the Work Enjoy-
ment Scale.
Internal consistencies for the Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoyment
scales have ranged from .67 to .88 (Burke, 1999a; 1999b) and .67 to .86 (Spence &
Robbins, 1992). In the present study, the reliabilities for the Work Involvement
Scale, the Drive Scale, and the Work Enjoyment Scale were found to be .65, .81,
and .89, respectively, for the university sample, and .60, .76, and .88, respec-
tively, for the SHRM sample. The reliabilities for the entire sample were .62, .80,
and .89, respectively.
The Work Addiction Risk Test is a self-report measure used to screen for
workaholic tendencies (Robinson, 1999; Robinson & Phillips, 1995). The scale
consists of 25 items (e.g., “I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire,” “I overly
commit myself by biting off more than I can chew”) arranged on a four-point
Likert-type scale A rating of 1 indicates that the item is “never true” and a rating
of 4 indicates that the item is “always true.” In the current study, a five-point
Likert-type scale was employed to increase the sensitivity of measurement, with
possible scores ranging from 25 to 100. Scores falling one standard deviation
(SD) below the mean indicate a low risk for work addiction; scores falling one
SD above the mean designate a participant as a medium risk for work addition;
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 249

and scores greater than one SD above the mean show a high risk for work addic-
tion tendencies.
Robinson (1999) reported Cronbach’s alpha for the WART to be .88. The
test-retest reliability over a two-week period was reported to be .83 (Robinson,
Post, & Khakee, 1992). In addition, Robinson and Post (1995) reported the split-
half reliability of the WART to be .85. In the current study, the internal consis-
tency for the WART was found to be .87 for the university sample and .86 for the
SHRM sample (.86 for the entire sample combined).
Relatively recent research has indicated that the WART may assess multiple
dimensions of workaholism. Flowers and Robinson (2002) performed a factor
analysis on the WART in which five factors emerged that accounted for 52% of
the variance in scores. A subsequent discriminant function analysis yielded three
factors that best represented the underlying factor structure of the WART. These
factors were labeled as: (1) compulsive tendencies, (2) control, (3) impaired
communication/self-absorption.

Job Descriptive Index-Work Itself Scale (JDI-WI)

The JDI-WI is one of the five scales that comprise the Job Descriptive Index
(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), which is one of the most frequently used mea-
sures of job satisfaction (DeMeuse, 1986; Muchinsky, 1987; O’Connor, Peters, &
Gordon, 1978; Yeager, 1981). The Work Itself scale consists of 18 items, each of
which has three potential responses (“yes,” “no,” “not sure”). Internal consis-
tency for the Work Itself scale was found to be .78 (Ironson et al., 1989). In the
present study, the coefficient alpha for the Work Itself subscale was .68 for the
university sample, .80 for the SHRM sample, and .78 for the entire sample.

Job in General
The Job in General scale (JIG) was developed by Ironson et al. (1989) in order to
assess global job satisfaction. The JIG is intended to accompany the facet
subscales of the JDI. The scale consists of 18 adjectives (e.g., “fascinating,”
“routine”) and includes the same response options (“yes,” “no,” “not sure”) as the
Work Itself subscale. The internal consistency of the JIG has been reported as .91
and above, based on thousands of participants (Ironson et al., 1989). In the
present study, the overall reliability of the JIG was .90 (university sample = .86;
SHRM sample = .92).

Leisure Boredom Scale

The Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) is a 16-item,
five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) designed
250 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

to assess an individual’s proneness to experience leisure boredom (e.g., “For me,

leisure time just drags on”). Higher scores on the LBS are indicative of higher
boredom with one’s leisure time. Across three samples, the internal consistencies
of the LBS were found to range from .85 to .88 (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990).
In the present study, the reliability of the LBS within the combined sample was
.90 (university sample = .91; SHRM sample = .87).
The LBS has been correlated with a variety of other constructs. For instance,
evidence for the construct validity of the LBS has been provided by significant,
negative correlations between the LBS and intrinsic leisure motivation (r = −.67),
leisure satisfaction scale (r = −.22), a single-item leisure satisfaction measure (r =
−.44), leisure ethic (r = −.38), leisure participation (r = −.32), and single-item
indicators of satisfaction with mental (r = −.17) and physical health (r = −.23;
see Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990).

Free Time Boredom

The Free Time Boredom (FTB) scale was developed by Ragheb and Merydith
(2001) to investigate the experience of boredom during free time. The FTB Scale
consists of 33 items arranged on a five-point Likert-type scale on which a rating
of 1 indicates that the respondent strongly disagrees with the statement and a
rating of 5 represents strong agreement. Each item begins with the statement
“During my free time” (e.g., “During my free time I feel that my surroundings
are dull and blah”). The coefficient alpha for the FTB scale was found to be .92
(Ragheb & Merydith, 2001).
The FTB scale is comprised of four subscales. The Lack of Meaningful
Involvement subscale consists of 12 items (e.g., “During my free time it seems
like I am wasting my time”). The Lack of Mental Involvement subscale consists
of nine items such as “During my free time I am satisfied with or interested in
what I do.” The third subscale, Slowness of Time in free time, consists of seven
items (e.g., “During my free time I am pleased with its amount”). Finally, the
Lack of Physical Involvement subscale consists of five items (e.g., “During my
free time I am physically energetic”). The internal consistencies for the Lack of
Meaning, Lack of Mental Involvement, Slowness of Time, and Lack of Physical
Involvement subscales were found to be .91, .85, .78, and .80, respectively
(Ragheb & Merydith, 2001). In the present study, only the total FTB score was
employed and a reliability of .88 for the combined sample was found (university
sample = .88, SHRM sample = .89).
Ragheb and Merydith (2001) indicated that FTB scores were significantly
correlated (r = .36) with the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS; Farmer &
Sundberg, 1986). In addition, the relationship between the BPS and the Lack of
Meaningful Involvement subscale of the FTB scale was found to be significant
(r = .40).
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 251

Work-Family Conflict Scale

The Work-Family Conflict Scale (WFCS) is an 18-item scale developed by
Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) in order to measure work-family con-
flict such as the tension that occurs when role pressures from work and family
domains are somewhat incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The Work-
Family Conflict Scale is presented in a five-point Likert-type format with
anchors ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scale
taps six dimensions of work-family conflict. The dimensions include three
forms of work-family conflict (time, strain, and behavior) and two directions
(work interference with family and family interference with work) on each
form. For example, the Work-Family Conflict Scale consists of items
designed to measure time-based work interferences with family (WIF; e.g.,
“My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like”) and
items designed to measure behavior-based family interferences with work
(FIW; e.g., “The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effec-
tive at work”).
Internal consistency for each dimension was found to be .87 for time-based
WIF, .79 for time-based FIW, .85 for strain-based WIF, .87 for strain-based FIW,
.78 for behavior-based WIF, and .85 for behavior-based FIW (Carlson et al.,
2000). In the present research, only scores for the combined Work-Family Con-
flict Scale (i.e., a general measure of work-family conflict) were used. Internal
consistencies for the entire sample, the university sample, and the SHRM sample
were all .91.

Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) is a seven-item scale (e.g., “How well
does your partner meet your needs”) used to measure satisfaction in close
relationships (Hendrick, 1998). It is applicable to many types of relationships,
including but not limited to traditional marriages. Scores on the RAS items range
from 1 (indicating low satisfaction) to 5 (indicating high satisfaction). Hendrick
(1998) found the internal consistency of the RAS to be .86. In addition, the
test-retest reliability of the RAS, across a six- to seven-week period, was reported
to be .85 (Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998). In the present study, the
reliability of the RAS was determined to be .93 (university sample = .95; SHRM
sample = .92).
The RAS has been found to be significantly related to an array of variables
including marital satisfaction (Hendrick et al., 1998) and a measure of dyadic
adjustment and marital quality (Hendrick, 1998). Scores on the RAS have also
been found to accurately identify individuals who were in a relatinship (couples)
versus those not in a relationship (Spanier, 1976).
252 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

RESULTS

Correlation coefficients were computed among all scales used in the study (see
Table 1). Preliminary analyses (two-way ANOVAs) were performed to test for
sex differences within each sample (university versus SHRM) on all scales
employed in the study. The results indicated that no sex differences existed
between scores on any of the scales, including the workaholism measures.
Additional analyses (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine differences
between the two samples on the scales employed in the study. These analyses
indicated that participants in the university sample had significantly higher
scores than SHRM members on the Work Enjoyment subscale, the JIG, and

TABLE 1
Correlations Among WART, Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE), JDI, JIG, RAS, WFCS, LBS,
and FTB Scores for the University and SHRM Samples

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University (n = 129)
1. WART – .41** .65** .08 −.16 −.17 .04 .43** .37** .37**
2. WI – .49** .25** .06 −.05 −.03 .16 .32** .31**
3. D – .20* −.20* −.14 −.08 .42** .16 .25*
4. WE – .53** .59** .13 −.12 −.13 −.24*
5. JDI-WI – .62** .25** −.39** −.25** −.38**
6. JIG – .09 −.23* −.09 −.24*
7. RAS – −.31** −.19* −.34**
8. WFCS – .42** .51**
9. LBS – .84**
10. FTB –
SHRM (n = 103)
1. WART – .32** .60** .22* −.15 .05 −.21 .47** .12 .26**
2. WI – .45** .45** .18 .11 −.05 .15 .19 .29**
3. D – .17 −.13 .01 −.16 .45** .17 .24*
4. WE – .55** .49** −.05 −.04 .15 −.04
5. JDI-WI – .69** −.01 −.35** −.19 −.21
6. JIG – −.09 −.27** .01 −.05
7. RAS – −.37** −.42** −.46**
8. WFCS – .22* .31**
9. LBS – .71**
10. FTB –

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work
Enjoyment; JDI-WI = Job Descriptive Index-Work Itself; JIG = Job in General; RAS = Relationship
Assessment Scale; WFCS = Work-Family Conflict Scale; LBS = Leisure Boredom Scale; FTB =
Free Time Boredom.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 253

JDI. Scores on the Drive subscale of the Workaholic Triad were significantly
lower among those in the university sample. Given these differences, subse-
quent analyses were conducted separately within the university and SHRM
samples.
A series of regression analyses was computed within each sample to examine
the impact of WART scores and Workaholic Triad scores on relationship
conflict, job satisfaction, and nonwork (leisure/free time) boredom scores. All
independent variables were entered simultaneously as a block in the regression
analyses.

Work-Family Conflict
Regression analyses indicated that WART scores, Work Enjoyment subscale
scores, and Drive subscale scores were all significant predictors of WFCS scores
for both samples (Table 2). In the university sample, Work Enjoyment (t = −2.63;
p < .01) and Drive subscale scores (t = 2.37; p < .05) were the best predictors of
WFCS scores, followed by WART scores (t = 2.36; p < .05). Overall, these three
factors accounted for approximately 27% of the variance (R = .52) in the univer-
sity sample. In the SHRM sample, significant predictors of WFCS scores
included WART scores (t = 3.27, p < .01), Drive subscale scores (t = 2.43;
p < .05), and Work Enjoyment subscale scores (t = −2.08; p < .05), respectively.
These variables accounted for 31% of the variance in the SHRM sample
(R = .56). Regression analyses computed within both samples indicated that
scores on the workaholism measures (WART, Work Involvement, Drive, and
Work Enjoyment) were not significant predictors of relationship satisfaction
(RAS) scores.

TABLE 2
The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE)
Scores on Work-Family Conflict Scores for the University
and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM

Scales Beta t Beta t

WART .27 2.36* .37 3.27**

WI −.07 −.61 −.02 −.13
D .28 2.37* .271 2.43*
WE −.24 −2.63** −.19 −2.08*

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involve-

ment; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
254 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

Job Satisfaction
Within the university sample, scores on the Work Enjoyment (t = 8.81; p < .001)
and Drive (t = −3.65; p < .001) subscales were found to be significant predictors
of JIG scores (see Table 3). Overall, scores on the Work Enjoyment and Drive
subscales accounted for approximately 45% of the variance in JIG scores (R = .67).
Scores on the Work Enjoyment subscale were found to be a significant predictor
of JIG scores for the SHRM sample (t = 5.18; p < .001), accounting for approxi-
mately 24% of the variance in JIG scores.
Both the Work Enjoyment (t = 7.28; p < .001) and Drive (t = −4.11; p < .001)
subscale scores were significant predictors of the JDI Work Itself scores for the
university sample (see Table 4), accounting for approximately 38% of the
variance (R = .61). Within the SHRM sample, scores on the Work Enjoyment
subscale (t = 7.55; p < .001) and scores on the WART (t = −.3.46; p < .001) were
found to be significant predictors of JDI-WI scores. These variables accounted
for approximately 41% of the variance in Work Itself scores (R = .64). Scores on
the Work Involvement subscale of the Workaholic Triad did not significantly
predict JIG scores or JDI Work Itself scores for either sample.

Leisure and Free Time Boredom

Workaholism scores were also found to be significant predictors of LBS and the
FTB scores. In the university sample, WART scores emerged as significant pre-
dictors of LBS scores (t = 3.75; p < .001), accounting for approximately 12% of

TABLE 3
The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE)
Scores on the Job in General Scores for the University
and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM

Scales Beta t Beta t

WART −.07 −.69 −.03 −.31

WI −.16 −1.88 −.11 −1.03
D −.28 −3.65** −.07 −.73
WE .67 8.81** .49 5.18**

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work

Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment.
**p < .001.
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 255

TABLE 4
The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE)
Scores on the Work Itself Scale of the JDI for the University
and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM

Scales Beta t Beta t

WART .00 .04 −.30 −3.46**

WI .11 1.18 .04 .38
D −.34 −4.11** −.09 −.85
WE .61 7.28** .64 7.55**

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work

Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment.
**p < .001.

TABLE 5
The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE)
Scores on Free Time Boredom Scores for the University
and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM

Scales Beta t Beta t

WART .25 2.34* .25 2.39*

WI .27 2.34 * .12 1.03
D −.08 −.62 .13 .93
WE −.26 −2.71** −.12 −1.12

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work

Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment.
*p < .05 **p < .01.

the variance (R = .35). However, in the SHRM sample, none of the workaholism
scores was found to be a significant predictor of scores on the LBS. In the univer-
sity sample, WART scores (t = 2.34; p < .05), Work Enjoyment subscale scores
(t = −2.71; p < .01), and Work Involvement subscale scores (t = 2.34; p < .05)
were significant predictors of scores on the FTB scale. The three factors com-
bined accounted for approximately 22% of the variance in FTB scores. In the
SHRM sample, only scores on the WART (t = 2.39; p < .05) emerged as a signif-
icant predictor of scores on the FTB scale (see Table 5). Scores on the WART
accounted for approximately 6% of the variance in this criterion.
256 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that workaholism scores are significant predictors of work-
family conflict, with the direction of the relationship being dependent on the type
of workaholism assessed. That is, high scores on the WART and Drive scales
were significant predictors of greater WFCS scores in both samples. On the other
hand, high Work Enjoyment scores were significantly related to lower levels of
family conflict.
A similar pattern of results, albeit less consistent, is evident on the association
between workaholism and job satisfaction. For instance, high Drive scores were
significantly related to lower Job in General and Work Itself scores in the univer-
sity sample. High WART scores were significantly predictive of lower Work
Itself scores in the SHRM sample. In both samples, high scores on the Work
Enjoyment (WE) scale were significantly associated with greater satisfaction
(i.e., JIG and JDI Work Itself scores). The association of high WE scores and
greater job satisfaction is consistent with past research (e.g., Burke et al., 2004;
McMillan et. al., 2002).
The current findings also support the hypothesis that workaholics are gener-
ally less likely to enjoy their leisure time, especially with regard to scores on the
WART. That is, in the SHRM sample, high WART scores were significantly
associated with greater leisure boredom, and elevated WART scores were signif-
icant predictors of greater Free Time Boredom (FTB) levels in both samples.
Greater Work Enjoyment scores were significantly related to low FTB scores in
the university sample only.
This evidence implies that workaholics are less likely to enjoy leisure activi-
ties and are unable to benefit from relaxation and involvement in nonwork activi-
ties. This is understandable given that workaholics spend the majority of their
waking hours involved in work-related activities and thoughts (Machlowitz,
1980; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997). The implications of these results are
emphasized by evidence suggesting that leisure satisfaction contributes to the
overall quality of life (Ragheb & Griffith, 1982; Riddick, 1986; Russell, 1987).
As Speller (1989) stated, those with positive mental health are characterized by
being “able to gain satisfaction from a variety of sources” (p. 11). These prelimi-
nary findings warrant additional research to determine how the lack of interest in
leisure and free time activities may affect the behavior and health of workaholics.
One limitation of this research is the use of self-report data. That is, the data
were collected from the perspective of workaholics. A concern in this regard is
that workaholics may not be sensitive to the actual problems that they (and
others) experience. Consequently, it would be beneficial to obtain data beyond
those produced by actual employees (e.g., from peers). Such a study was recently
performed by Burke and Ng (2007) and the authors found significant agreement
in Work-Bat scores between workaholic employees and their coworkers. Also,
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 257

research has found that workaholism scores generated by employees and their
acquaintances (i.e., family members, friends, coworkers) were similar (Aziz &
Zickar, 2006). Also, somewhat surprisingly, workaholism was not found to be
related to scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale in either sample. This is
in stark contrast to the significant correlations found in the present study between
workaholism scores and those on the work-family conflict scale. Although RAS
and WFC scores were significantly correlated in the university and SHRM sam-
ples of the present study (−.31 and −.38, respectively), they assess different
aspects of nonwork harmony. Our results suggest the detrimental impact of
workaholism may be specific to work and nonwork conflict, and perhaps do not
generalize to other aspects of relationship satisfaction.
An advantage of the present study was the use of two different employee sam-
ples, thereby increasing the generalizability of the findings. Such an approach is
valuable given that past research on workaholism has often used participants
(e.g., students) with relatively limited work experience (Robinson, 1995, 1996,
1999; Robinson & Post, 1995; Robinson, Post, & Khakee, 1992). Our investiga-
tion is also strengthened by the emergence of an overlapping (but not exact)
pattern of results obtained with the use of two separate, psychometrically sound
measures of workaholism, which assess related but different aspects of the con-
struct (see generally moderate correlations between the WART and Work-Bat
subscale scores in Table 1). Researchers wishing to measure specific workaho-
lism types would be advised to administer the Workaholism Battery, while those
interested in a global assessment would likely find the WART preferable.
Although the WART may possess subscales (Flowers & Robinson, 2002), this
research is preliminary and needs to be confirmed by future research.
Collectively, the present results support the benefits of assessing multiple
facets of workaholism. In particular, the findings emphasize the need to con-
sider the affective, cognitive, and/or behavioral reactions to the investment of
time at work. This point is shown by the relatively advantageous outcomes
associated with high work enjoyment (WE) scores (less work-family conflict,
greater job satisfaction) as compared to the detrimental relationships found to
be associated with Drive and WART scores (greater conflict, more leisure
boredom).
Indeed, the results regarding the Work Enjoyment scale are partially reflective
of the lack of agreement on the definition of workaholism. As noted earlier, some
researchers do not fully ascribe to the negative connotations of workaholism.
Related to the present context, it has been argued that it is improper to conceptu-
alize all workaholics as having low enjoyment of their work (e.g., Korn et al,
1987; Machlowitz, 1980). It is also worthwhile to note that Spence and Robbins
(1992) identified a “positive” workaholic type (“enthusiastic workaholic”) that is
comprised of high scores on all three of their scales (i.e., Work Involvement, Drive,
Work Enjoyment). Obviously, such disagreement and apparent inconsistencies in
258 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

the definition of workaholism must be resolved in order to adequately develop

and test hypotheses on the various correlates of workaholism.

Organization Role and Implications

Given these findings, organizational interventions aimed at decreasing the nega-
tive consequences of workaholism may be warranted (e.g., Vodanovich &
Piotrowski, 2006). This seems particularly relevant because researchers have
suggested that companies may actually encourage workaholic behaviors and that
organizations themselves may be classified as “workaholic” (Fassel, 1990;
Schaef & Fassel, 1998; Spruell, 1987). For many employees, the culture and
incentive systems within companies promote the working of longer hours to
achieve success (e.g., Burke, 2001; Spruell, 1987). Arnott (2000) coined the term
“corporate cults“ to indicate how organizations can foster overwhelming dedica-
tion and allegiance to work. The role that the climate of an organization can have
on the expansion of workaholism was discussed by Johnstone and Johnston
(2005). They stated that “if an organizational climate encourages and rewards
workaholic behaviors, then workaholics are likely to develop and flourish” (p.
182). Indeed, Spruell contends that “unfortunately, workaholism is the most
rewarded addiction in our culture” (p. 44). It would be beneficial for future
research to examine the contributions of organizational structure and practices on
workaholic behaviors.
Fassel and Schaef (1989) stressed that it is important for organizations to try
to identify employees who exhibit signs of workaholic behaviors. The need for
such a process is emphasized by literature which suggests that workaholic
employees can have a detrimental impact on organizations. One common out-
come is that workaholics experience greater job stress and more health-related
problems (e.g., Burke, 2000c; Burke et al., 2004; Kanai & Wakabayashi, 2001;
Spence & Robbins, 1992). Thus, the long-term consequences for organizations
(and individuals) may be increased costs for health care and lost productivity due
to illness.
Workaholics have also been described as being critical, inefficient, unable to
delegate, and/or difficult to work with (e.g., Machlowitz, 1980; Spence & Robbins,
1992). Spruell (1997) portrayed workaholics as competitive and as having a
potentially negative impact on the motivation levels of coworkers. Another char-
acteristic ascribed to workaholics is a propensity to control the work of others
(e.g., Mudrack, 2004; Mudrack & Naughton, 2001). It has been suggested that
workaholics who are in managerial positions may pose the greatest problems
partly by establishing unrealistic performance standards, which in turn can foster
anger among workers, interpersonal conflict, and low employee morale (e.g.,
Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Spruell, 1987). Finally, one of the primary findings of
Johnstone and Johnston (2005) was that the detrimental effects of workaholism
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 259

can occur if organizational pressures to work long hours are not accompanied by
adequate managerial support, and the relationships between coworkers are
strained.
Others have emphasized the crucial role that supervisors and managers can
play in helping employees with workaholic tendencies (e.g., Bartolome & Evans,
1980; Haas, 1991). Such efforts can include managerial assistance in establishing
work priorities, delegating tasks, setting specific times for breaks and leaving
work, and referring workaholic employees to employee assistance programs.
Consistent with the latter point, formal counseling has been advocated for worka-
holics, especially if the workaholic tendencies can be linked with Type A person-
ality and/or obsessive-compulsive traits (Mudrack, 2004; Naughton, 1987). As
Naughton (1987) has stated, one goal of therapy with workaholics who possess
compulsive tendencies is “to reduce the extent to which their behavior is dys-
functional to themselves and to the organizations employing them” (p. 185).
Indeed, Schaef and Fassel (1998) developed a 12-step process designed to reduce
workaholic behaviors on an individual and organizational level. Also, counseling
for workaholics that involves family members has been proposed (e.g., Burke,
2000a) because family support is considered crucial for the success of therapeutic
interventions (e.g., Bartolome, 1983; Minirth et al., 1981). Finally, the use of
training programs (including self-help formats) has also been suggested to assist
workaholics in developing varied interests and to engage in nonwork activities
(Franzmeier, 1988; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Korn, Pratt, & Lambrou, 1987;
Naughton, 1987; Seybold & Salomone, 1994). Although the above suggestions
may be effective, it is critical that organizations take the potential negative
impact of workaholic employees seriously in order to choose and initiate appro-
priate intervention strategies.

REFERENCES

Arnott, D. (2000). Corporate cults: The insidious lure of the all-consuming organization. New York:
American Management Association.
Austin, J. (2000). Workaholism: The symptoms, the causes, the cure. Potential At Work. Retrieved
September 19, 2001, from www.potentialatwork.com/articles/workaholism.html
Aziz, S., & Zickar M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 52–62.
Bartolome, F. (1983). The work alibi: When it’s harder to go home. Harvard Business Review, 61,
66–74.
Bartolome, F., & Evans, P. A. (1980). Must success cost so much? Harvard Business Review, 58,
137–148.
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism
with work-life conflict, satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
469–477.
Brenton, D., & Largent, C. (1996). The paradigm conspiracy. Center City, MN:
260 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

Hazelden. Burke, R. J. (1999a). Workaholism and extra-work satisfaction. International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 7, 352–364.
Burke, R. J. (1999b). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41, 333–345.
Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism among women managers: Personal and workplace correlates.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 520–530.
Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219–220.
Burke, R. J. (2000c). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical well-being conse-
quences. Stress Medicine, 16, 11–16.
Burke, R. A. (2001a). Workaholism in organizations: The role of organizational values. Personnel
Review, 30, 637–645.
Burke, R. A. (2001b). Spence and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components: Test-retest stabil-
ity. Psychological Reports, 88, 882–888.
Burke, R. A., & Ng, E. S. W. (2007). Workaholic behaviors: Do colleagues agree? International
Journal of Stress Management, 14, 312–320.
Burke, R. A., Oberklaid, F., & Burgess, Z. (2004). Workaholism among Australian women psycholo-
gists: Antecedents and consequences. Women in Management Review, 5, 252–259.
Burke, R. A., Richardson, A. M., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian
managers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 459–470.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Carroll, J. J., &. Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification among adults as related to
parental workaholism and alcoholism. Family journal: Counseling and therapy for couples and
families, 8, 360–367.
Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American Management Association.
DeMeuse, K. P. (1986). A compendium of frequently used measures in industrial/organizational
psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 23, 53–59.
Erase-Blunt, M. (2001). The busman’s holiday. HR Magazine, 46, 76–80.
Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (Work-Bat): Turkish
form. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 609–617.
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4–17.
Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high cost of workaholism, the rewards of recovery.
San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.
Fassel, D., & Schaef, A. W. (1989). The high cost of workaholism. Business and Health, 21, 38–42.
Flowers, C., & Robinson, B. E. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction
Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 517–526.
Frankel, M. (1998). Creating the family friendly workplace: Barriers and solutions. In S. Klarreich
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational health psychology: Programs to make the workplace healthier
(pp. 79–100). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.
Franzmeier, A. (1988). To your health. Nation’s Business, 76, 73.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick and L. E. Tetrick, (Eds.) Handbook of Occu-
pational Health Psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related
outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 1, 57–69.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. J. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health
outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 70, 325–336.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 261

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, work—family spillover and problem drinking
during midlife. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 336–348.
Haas, R. (1991). Strategies to cope with a cultural phenomenon—workaholism. Supervisory Manage-
ment, 36, 4.
Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. (2003). Effects of spouses’ and own work-family
conflict on withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419–436.
Hammer, L. B., Colton, C. L., Caubet, S. L., & Brockwood, K. J. (2002). The unbalanced life: Work
and family conflict. In J. C. Thomas and M. Hersen (Eds.). Handbook of mental health in the work-
place (pp. 83–101). London: Sage.
Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291–319.
Hendrick, S. S. (1998). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 50, 93–98.
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a
job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 193–200.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure: Conceptualization,
reliability, and validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 1–17.
Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between organization climate, organizational
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.
Kiechel, W. (1989, April 10). The workaholic generation. Fortune, 50–62.
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 38, 37–40.
Korn, E. R., Pratt, G. J., & Lambrou, P. T. (1987). Hyper-performance: The A.I.M. strategy for
releasing your business potential. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
L’Abate, L., & L’Abate, B. L. (1981). Marriage: The dream and the reality. Family Relations, 30,
131–136.
Lambert, C., Kass, S. J., Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2006). Impact factors on work-family
balance: Initial support for border theory. Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 87–98.
MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and fam-
ily interference with work. Work and Stress, 13, 59–73.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Marks, N. F. (1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family-conflict, and midlife well-being.
Journal of Marriage & the Family, 60, 951–966.
McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted valida-
tion study of Spence and Robbins (1992) workaholism battery. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 75, 357–368.
McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Brady, E. C. (2004). The impact of workaholism on per-
sonal relationships. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 171–186.
Minirth, F., Meier, P., Wichern, F., Brewer, B., & Skipper, S. (1981). The workaholic and his family:
An inside look. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1987). Psychology applied to work. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic
behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490–508.
Mudrack, P. E., & Naughton, T. J. (2001). The assessment of workaholism as behavioral tendencies: Scale
development and preliminary empirical testing. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 93–111.
262 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual review of workaholism and implications for career counseling
and research. The Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180–187.
Oats, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World
Publishing.
O’Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., & Gordon, S. M. (1978). The measurement of job satisfaction: Current
practices and future considerations. Journal of Management, 4, 17–26.
Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group
and Organization Management, 26, 369–393.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative
outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70–84.
Ragheb, M. G., & Griffith, C. A. (1982). The contribution of leisure participation and leisure satisfac-
tion to life satisfaction of older persons. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 295–306.
Ragheb, M. G., & Merydith, S. P. (2001). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale
measuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies, 20, 41–59.
Reiss, M. (2002). American karoshi. New Internationalist, 343, 1–3. Retrieved March 18, 2002, from
FindArticles.com database.
Riddick, C. C. (1986). Leisure satisfaction precursors. Journal of Leisure Research, 18, 259–256.
Robinson, B. E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Robinson, B. E. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test.
Psychological Reports, 77, 657–658.
Robinson, B. E. (1996). Concurrent validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test as a measure of worka-
holism. Psychological Reports, 79, 1313–1314.
Robinson, B. E. (1998a). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 26, 65–75.
Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Chained to a desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their parents, and
children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University Press.
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. (2000). A typology of workaholics with implications for counselors. Journal of
Addictions and Offender Counseling, 21, 34–48.
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.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 397–410.
Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addic-
tion Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 657–658.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Spit-half reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test: Develop-
ment of a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 76, 1226.
Robinson, B. E., Post, P., & Khakee, J. F. (1992). Test-test reliability of the Work Addiction Risk
Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 926.
Russell, R. V. (1987). The relative contribution of recreation satisfaction and activity participation to
the life satisfaction of retirees. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 273–283.
Schaef, K. S., & Fassel, D. (1998). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences
of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of causes and
counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 4–9.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2004). Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 17, 520–536.
 THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 263

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage
and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
Speller, J. L. (1989). Executives in crisis: Recognizing and managing the alcoholic, drug-addicted, or
mentally ill executive. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary
results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
Spruell, G. (1987). Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 41, 41–45.
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands:
Measurement and implications for job strain and work-non-work conflict. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 54, 37–60.
Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Workaholism: A critical but neglected factor in O.D.
Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 55–60.
Yeager, S. G. (1981). Dimensionality of the Job Descriptive Index. Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 205–212.