This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]

On: 06 February 2015, At: 07:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Workaholism: Definition, Measurement,

and Preliminary Results
Janet T. Spence & Ann S. Robbins
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Janet T. Spence & Ann S. Robbins (1992) Workaholism: Definition, Measurement,
and Preliminary Results, Journal of Personality Assessment, 58:1, 160-178, DOI: 10.1207/
s15327752jpa5801_15

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5801_15

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not
the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be
relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 IQURKAL OF PCRSOkALITY ASSESSMENT, 1942 58(1:, 160-178
Copyngkt o 1992 Lawrence Erlhaurn Associa:rs, Enc

W orkaholism: Definition,
easurement, and Preliminary Results
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

~ developed ci: assess the concept a i wo&hdism, defined in

Q ~ e s t i o n n a i r ewere
cerms of hzgh scores an measures of work in\vi.c,emen: and iiriveness and low
scores c n a measure gf enjoymen: oi work, and :a contrast thrs profiie with work
entbwiisrn: defined as h ~ g hwork involvemer.r and enjiyment and iow driveness.
Aciditmnai sca'les were devised ro test several predictions iiou: :he correlates oi'
wofkaholism. k test hactery inchding :hew scaies was given in a maii ssrvey to a
nztionai sample of male in = 1341 and female (n = 157) social workers with
-" " .
acaden;ic poslcjons. i he psychometric properties ot :he scales are described.
Chste: anaIyses for each sex revealed g r o u p who corresponded :c :he workahoiic
an6 work enthusiast profiles as we3 as severai otber prz16les. .%s predicted,
workehoiics were higher thac work en:husiasr.: (znonp other groups) o n measures
of perfectionism, nondeiegation o! re~~onsibiiity, and job s:ress. Thev were aiso
higher or: 2 measure of heaItl? cornpiaints. ir.:ves:lga:ionc are being mitiaced :o
decerminr the association oiwcricaholism and other score profiles with okjectiveig
diagnosed carJ:ac disorder. and with measures of occupational perforxance.

7 .

As far as car! be determined, the :ern workakoltsm, petterned afrer the word
d ~ ~ h ~firs: ~ ~ , in a book by Oates (i97I: in which he described his
i kappeared
earlier compulsicr; tc work ~ncesssn:Iy and suggested some of the chzracteristics
exhibited bv u~orkaddicts and rhe negative ccnsequeccei brought zbo'd: by th:s
addiction. Since that time, :he word has become widely knova; re;krences to
workahoiisrn are becoming common in rhc press and 12 everyday speech.
Indr?strial-orgari:zatior,a1 psychologists; a m m g others, have aisc wr:rten exten-
si-e!p or: the topic in books and articles aimed ar a iay a.xlience {e.g., Baronson?
i976; hlachlowitz, 1W3: Meyer, !974; Min:rth, Meier: Wicherc, Brewer: &
Skipper, 198:; Spankie Sr Ebei, 1937). Casuei references to worlcaholism arc
aIso beginriing ro ;.pear in prime dam journals.
Yer! despite its common currency: rhere is little consensus &out the lneaning
of the workaholism construct beycnd its core feature of heavy i~vescnenrin
 work. For example. h?osiex i19S3) defined workaholics sirnpjy as those %.hawork
at ieasc 50 hr a week, whereas 3'iachiowit; (1977) stated the: what &:inpisher
workahoiics from others is their attitude toward work and not rhe n u n b e r of
hours they work. Some (e.g., Oates, !Y71! imp1icitiy defined a w + a h o l i s ~ ir: a
negari1.e way or have focused on its deieterious aspects, whereas others
(Cantarow, 1'179; Machiowit-, 1980)ha\-e proposed that workako!ics aiso ha.1.e
positive features. such as pleasure in work and creaciviry.
Furthermore. feu formal F T O C ~ ~ U X Sfor assessing wsrkahclism have Seen
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

deve'noped. Altholrgh several self-report quesrl=.nnaires have appeared In pop-

ular sources (e.g., Bradley, cited In hlachlowirz, 1977: Farnswor:h, iXI:
-. .
?\lachiowitz, !983), psychometric analyses of rhei;. properties are lacking. 3iT.i-
lady, oniy occasional irivestigacions of the ccrreiates and consequences of
workaholisrr., however defined and assessed, have appearecj ir, ~rofessiona!
journals (e.g., Coerfler 5r Kzmmer, 1966).
TI he popuiarity 3f the general notion of workahaiism refierts its intuitxc

appear 2nc suggests chat the topic deserves e\-sternatic in\:estiga:ion. As ;us:
1 -

noted. however, the term workaholism has been used in \.arious wavs. and no
consensus has emerged ahout its 2recise meaning- Thus, a number oidifierem
definlt;o:ls could legirimarely be proposed. The first task of ar,y inr-estigarx i tcj
selccr among various ~osssibG:ies and :o offer an exp!icic defi~iticr,.Ic t h s
article, we present osr definition of ~ o r k a h o i i s mand describe the series oi
seif-reporr ques~ionnaireswe have deveiopec! to icienrify indr~.iduzIsia':iing into
this and orher work-reiared categories. V?e aiso present t h e resuits af an
c x p h a t o r y stody of a group of maif a n t femak social workers with academic
. <
appointments w h c cornpiered these questionnaires and other scaies clcveiopea
t o test several .;redicrions about the correiates of \\wrkahoikrn. As such, thesc
rests constitute a n invescigaticin of the validity oi this and o&er work-related
constructs as we have defined them,

DEFINITION OF TERMS

As already noted, the corninon elemen: in discussionc ofworiahs!ism is chat rhc

afiecteci incfixriduai is highiy committed to work, deyV-otinga Zeal oi :?me t o
it.' Sometimes, however, it is inpiled or exp!icitiv stated that. i:ke a:lcol.,olism;
workahoiisn: is an addiction; the workahoiic feeis drixren n: compei1e:l TO work,
,.
not Secasse of external demands or pleasure in work, hgr bccause o: :r,ner
pressures that make the pessm distressed or guilty about not u.o:king. This is
:he sense in which we have ctmser, :o define the term. Mere spec:fically, we

'It IS irr:pllci: 1:: rhese starenentr :hat w x l , refers ti> job-rein:& a.-rlv!?ies an3 artitu&>. At :he
same time. the mtenr seems to be tc. include under the iahie of ,.cari: ~onstriirrivt.,goal-5irrited
behaviors :ha: mo!; occur av:)cational!y.
 162 §PENCE AND ROBBINS

define the workaholic as a perscn whc exhibits three properties: In comparison

to others, the workaholic is highly work invcived, feeis compeiied or driven to
work because of inner pressures, and is low ir: e;.'oyment of work.
We were of the ~ipfij,hawe\ve~that Ir! a sorreiacionai sense, rhese three
properties are eubstanrially independent of each other: The person who is highly
work involved is not necessady aiso driver,; nor does s x h a person necessarily
lack pleas~reir. work. We have, therefore, chosen to contrast :he workaholic
with what we have iaheled the work emthusiast. We define the umk ~ r ~ t h : ~ s ias
ai~t
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

a person whc, iike the workaholic, is highly work involved: bze unlike the latter,
i~ hrgh ir: enjo-fment and is nor driven.
We anticipated :ha: ocher profiles would aisc be faand on the three charac-
terisdcs that we will cai!, generically, the workaholic triaci-degree of work
involvement, driveness;, and enjoyment of work. However, we decided to ler
rhese emerge from the data rather :ha?, specdating &out them in advance.
Although she essentially Iilrnpeci togerher what we h a w def:ned as the
workahoiic and the work e~thusiasrinto a sinpie caregoy: we agree with
h4ach'lowitz's (1914,1950) conrention t.l;ar inrensit:; of involvement defines
these indiviciuak more than the sheer amount of :ime they aevore to work,
particularly to job-related acrivlties. 'We shosid, :herefore. expliczte our concep-
t i m of work ir,volvemenr. The individual who is highly work hvofved charac-
teristically devotes himself or herseii whoieineartedly to prodsccive prqects and
prefers to make constructii/e uses of ::me, This :rait is often expressed il-.
academic aztivities by students or in occupdonai acrivkie~by those wifh paid
t . even :n these groups, work involf:emen: may be expressed ir,
e m p i ~ y m e ~But
addition or insread in other ways ie,g., hobbies, spor:s, domestic projects,
vokmteer work, etc.). Those activities that constitute mihat we have iabeled
work are thus essentiaZIy defined as such by the individuai. A+this statement
ima!ies, we distinguish beween work involvement? r: general corscept. and the
more specific concept of joh (or szhod? izvoivemerrt, We actidpare, hrwever,
thac the tm7o tend to be correlated and. in practice, are not aiways e a y to
dis~inguish.Work involvernect and job cvoivement: are particuiarl:; likely ;c be
. ,.
reia:ecj ir: people i s professiocal and managerki pasitions or ocher chdenging
occc;pations.

Based on the observstions of other writers as we2 as our own specu!ations: we

posiced that a cumber ai attributes would distinguish workahoiics fro= work
enthusiasts and other individuais. Firs;, we pred~ctedthat workzhokcs wnuld
exhibit more perfectionism fhan others and would sisa be less wiliing to delegare
respon<biii:ies. Work enrhusiasts might be higher or: these clsaracteristics than
 those who are less work involved, but nonetheless iower than workaholics. We
further anzicipated that workaholics (but not work enthusiasts: wouId experl-
ence more lob stress t h a ~others, a feeling of being cverwhelmed bv rheir
respansibiiities and ail rhey expecced rhemseives :o do.
rmzliv, we predicted that workahoiisrn and its associated characreris:ics
7.

would hzve two malor consequences. Firsi, workahoiics shacid repc-t experi-
encing more physicai symptoms and iilnesses than others, pa-ticslarly those of
a m i m r r,aare, Second, we speculated rhat :he perfomance of workahoks
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

might be oi lesser quality thari tkar cf work ectkusiasts tCherringtorr, i9Q

Tayior & hfar:in, 1987). In this arricIe, a!l these p:ediccicns were tested excep
rhc iarrer. Data l.,a\.e \vet rc be coiiected relevant to our hvpothesis about
performance.

%e developed three self-rep-: scales-Vork hvolvement, Brii~eness, and

Work Enjoyment-:o identic:). the workzholic, work enrhsias:, a n d other
work-related profiles. Additional self-report scales were deveioped tc assess Jcb
Stres, job Involvement, Perfecrionism, Nondeiegat~ocof Respansibiliry, and
Time Commitment. The latcer scak was aimed a: dece:m:cing the amoun: oi
time devoted t o occupatioraai h i e s . A s described next, ~reiiminaryversions of
the scales were firs: developed and given to college studenrs, the h a 1 versions
showtng sacisfactory peychonerric properties following revisioc. Adul: versions
of these scales (in which references were made rc?johs and the work place rathe:
thara to schod and schoolwofk! were aciministered t o the sample. T o dererxine
the psychometric properties of the version of the scales for emplcved adults and
to test our predictions about the correlates of workahclism, we conducred a mail
survey o i a sample of sociai workers who had academic appobxments in colleges
or univers~ries.Academic socia': workers were seierted as an example of a
relat~veiyhomogenous group oi indi\~idualsemployed in derrm-ding proies-
siorial posmxx whose responsibilities are open-ended*Tha: is, chrir d:.*' d ~ l are
e~
not restrlced to set cimes and placesl and there are essentlaily n s h i t s to the
amount of jobrelated ac:ivities char they could take or;. except those mposed by
themselves. The sociai work professior: had the additioraai ad-vantage of ha\.ing
substantial numbers of both sexes as members.

Respondents
, .
A surve;: booklet was sect to a smip1e o i 802social workers, whc were ranacmiv
seiecred br computer from a National .4ssoc;atior, of Sociai R'cxicers daca base
 containing the names of aXi members who described themselves holding aca-
demic appcintments, Of these, job - retarned their questionnaires within 2
'?

months of the posting dare. Twentyone addirionai sj.ra7eyswere re~wrreclafter

-
this time but were too late t~ be included in the datc: anaiyses. i he demographic
characteristics of these late respondents were similar to those sf the other
respondents. The cverak! return rare was thus 49'4.' CX the 355 completed
quescionrrzires, 4P were ehinatecl frorr: further consideration becaase the
respondent had redred cr had a prrdoxinantly nonacadeinic positicsn. Re-
--3 individ:~aiswho were erxployed m l y part-time (n = 22')or who
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

r
spcnses ~ o 'm
did nor indicate their empioyrnent status (n = €9 were aim ei!minared. The final

was 43 years {interquartilerange -

sample thus consisted o i 291 individuals i!34 men and 157 women), Median age
35-+$"I for thewomen and 4O (interquartile
range 31-47;for t h e men. Other demographic characlterisrics of the sample are
shown in Izbie 1.

Before describing in det& the scaka given ro the social worker sampie, we briefly
outline their de\7elopmerL:. 3ased on ratlanai ccmidcratjon~,u7e first wrore set5
of eight or more kerns to assess the wofiahoiic triad (Work knvolvernem,
Driveness, and f o r k Enjoyment) and the attriSures with which we expected
these &aracreristics t c he correiated gob S:ress, Job Invoiyemen:, Perfecticn-
ism, Snndeiepaticr: of Respoasibi!ity, and Time Commitment\. These items
were ad=inis:ered ro male and female srclcie~tsr,ns > 1 . 3 ) ecroIied ir, !n:rodzi-
tory psychoiogy classes at the University of Texas at Austin. The stacemen:.
referred ro schoolwork ra:her than t c jobs ic the sense oc paid employment.
, .
After exarninirrg? separately for each sex, Cror-hack! ziphas, isteritem correla-
tions. and part-whole carrelaticme for :he items 03 each scak, a z-umber oficerns
thar displayed nans~gnificar,tinterirem and item-total correiaricns and whose
inclusjon icwered the interad ccsnsistenc~~ zoefiicient f2r tha: scale wex
dropped or, in scjme insctinces, reavritter?. The resuiting revised ar,d shortened
scale: were adninistered ro a new sample of maie arid female s?xkncs ins >
140j.The kerns or!each scale proved ro have satisfactori? psychomerric proper-
ties, as determined by the same set of criteria for r e t e n t i o ~already described.
E x e r t for the subst:rution of references to ''job" far :hose to "schooi," these
revised scales were :Re anes administered to the ad& sample o!'sociai workers.

ir.
ror financiai reasans. :he slirvey!: were sen: ou: RK hc!k mail :.aces: which mezn: thar
. ,
nondt.iiverainle surveys were not returned. It was, therefarc, inpossibie c
: cietern-.me now rn-ni;
survevs werc not recaved hecause of incorrect addresses. and thw the acrual response race ;mi6
! ~ &ow 401JA'/6.
a c t ~ a l he
 TABLE 7
Percenzapes of Male" and Female" Social Workers in Several Demograph~cCategories
Mrrrlml S:iittcs .\if2 U"ompr,

Married 79 6c.,
:-.
Diimrced.:separated ;.? :<

'Si'dnud i
Never married 12 .,.
,L
-.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

. A s s a i ~ a : e ~ A s s ~ s x?rofess>r
nt
Pror'essor
Dear.
Adviwr
ather

Survey Booklet

In addition tc! questions aimed ar determining the Jemographx chzracterxics

of the respondents, the survey booklet sect rc the social workers contained the
seKreport scaies described here. Excepr when indicated otherwise, the items o n
- .
the various scaies were intermirtgied; each item was answered on a 3 . p r n t scaie
ranging from stro~gi?agree (i) to srrozpiy disagree ( 5 ) . Item responses were scsred
nn a scaie ranging from O to 4 and summed ro yield a :oral score io: each scale.
The alphas. means, and standard deviations of each ses or- ea& scaie are
reported ir, Table 2.

Wark !.r,eos'vemenf. The Vork Involvement Scaie consists of seven k e r n s .

Saxpie itexs are "I like to use my rkne construc:ivel~ on an2 off :he jo5,"
"Between my Job and other actl;xies I'm invohred In. I doc': hai.e much free
 166 5PENCE AND ROBBIN5

TABLE 2
Alpha Coefficrents, Means, Standard Deviat~ons.and Slgnlf~canceof 1 Rat~osAssessmg
Differences Betwee3 Men" and Womenb on the IVork-Related Measures
Alpha h'leaxs ;'SD,

Scolc Men Wornerr .Ver Wome-. h

-

Invoivernent
(R: 2-32) .6c9 .67 15.4 (5.2: 16.4 (5.:) ns
Driver.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

(R: 3-33) .el .6,7 11.3 (5.3 :$.7 (5,7j .D! hD

Enioyment oi 'Fork
R:0-40) .86 .86 24 3 16.6) 27.; (6.5: . a;?
Job !r,roivernen:
tR: 5-32) .?8 37 22.7 (5.2': 24.3 (5.5) ,3558
job Stress
p,. 3-.3! .8& .88 17.3 (7.2) 20.9 (7.2; " ~ g:g
Time C o m m m e x
:R: 2-28) .84 3C: LL.L
>, P, (6.5'. 171.6 If& ,0224

time," anci "1 get bored and restless or: vacztiam wher? 1 ha;ien't anything
productive :c do."
-.
B ~ v e n . i he Driven Scale consists of seven Items. Sample Iterris are ''Ifeel
obligated to iiroric hard. eve2 when ir's act er~pyable,""I oker: feel there's
something ~nsideme that drives me to work hard," and "I often find myself
tir~r.kingabout WX-;C even when I watt to get away from :t for aivb:le."

Enjoymeni ef Work. The Errjojme~xof Work Scale is composed o i nine

items. Sampie :?ems are '1 lose track of :imp wherl !':m engaged on a project,"
"Most of the rime T L ~ work is very eajoyabie," and ''Sametimes i enjoy my work
so mlach i h a - e 2 hard time sroppmg."

job Involuemen:. The job '!nvdvernent Scale con:zin,c seven irems, Sample
items are "Much of lrry satlsfacc;orr in liie cones from rrrrjob," "My job is a very
importast part of who I2m," 2nd 'I am very absorbed in my jab,''

fob Stress. The Job Stress Scale consists of nine items. S a m ~ i eitems are "1
uvorryabost ail :he work I have to do 2nd whether ge; i: ali done," "l am ancier
a good 6eaI of stress at work," and '" &en ieei overworked."
 - .
Time Comn~it?nenfto fob. The Time Connitmer:-.r Scaie is composed of
seven items. Sample iterns are "I usuaily rake some job-related work aiong or:
. .
'i:acations," "1 work most nignts and weekends," and "I frequently work unri! I'm
toe tjred to do more." Twc additicnai questions asked how many hours cb.ey
worked ciuring the average work week (Mondzy through Fricizv! and weekend.

Perfecftonisrn. The Perfectionism Scak consists of e)gi:r iterns. S a r q i e kerns

are "I am satdied with nothing short of perfec:im ic mv work." "M!:high
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

standards some~imesmake it- difiiculr far me to get everything done." a d "It's

importan: to me not to make mistake:., even in small deta:is."

Nondelegaiian. The Nondeiegarion Scale consists oi sevm ::ems. S a x ~ i e

items are '7 double check :he work ofo:hers so thoroughiy :ha: deiegating tasks
saves nc7 rime at all," "When I work on tezm projects 1 do most ci the vark
wself," and "I fee1 :hat if vou want something done correcti~)-su should i n it
VOUTSE~~."

Wealth Compiainfs and Behaviors. T h e Health Complai:lts Scaie. de;.ised

bv Spence, Melmreich, and Pred (1987), has 22 iterns, each accexpanied by a
5-point rating scale, asking about the {requency wich xvhick the respndents had
expermxed \:arious iEnesses and symproms during the pas: vear. These in-
cluded qdestions about sleep, headaches: prohiems w t h dlgection a n t elimna-
tion. arid respirator!; ~robiems.Beceuse of the degree oi :nternai consis:ency
~Cronhacha l ~ h a of s "82 for men and .83 for women,, B tor2 health comFia:r,ts
score was obtained for each individuai. Objectivejr scored quest lo:^ were aiso
asked aboirr smoking and arnouat and frequency of aicohd consumpticn.
Ir: addition, responder:ts were asked to iisc anv medications the\ were raking
on a regular basis, rhe number and nature oC hospitaiizarionz they had ander-
gone in the past rear, and the number and nacure of serious heal& probiem
. .
the:- had experienced in the past. However, rhe sampie as a n.hole was heairhy,
wth the large majority reporting n o surgical inrervent~onso r serious health
problems and nor taking prescrip:ion rneciications. Tile members of the s a r n ~ i e
also seemed very heaith conscious ir! regard rc smoking and drinking, wirh the
response distribcrions of :hese items aiso demonsuating severe negative skew.
Due to the nonnorma!ity of their distributions, rhese neasures were iroppcd
from f ~ r t h e ranalvsis.

RESULTS

The results o f t tests comparing the means oi me3 and women o c tb.e various
objectively scored measures are &own on the right side of Tabie 2. A gIance ar
..
tnis table reveals that women displayed significandy higher means that the men
 on the Driver., Enjoyment, 505 S:ress, Job Involvement, and Time Corr,mit-
rraent Scales; the sexes did not differ significantig c n :he Work In~olvernent,
Perfectionism, and Sondelegation scales.
Of greater importance than the mean differences between the sexes are the
reiationships among the measures within each sex. The correlation matrix is
dispiaved in Table 3. A: mag be obsewed, paraliei results were h u n d for bath
sexes. These findings simultaneously demensrrate the similarity oithe sexes with
respect to the relationships among the variables (as indeed we anticipated they
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

wouid be'?and the stabihy of the findings across tnrc independem sampies. An
' :he relationships among the three sceies defining warkaholism
esarr,ins:ior. a
revezis 2. substactid positive correiacion betiwen the ?Si.'ork involvemect and
Driven scales and a modest but still significar,: positive correimcn between
Work Irtvolvernent and Enjoyment. On the 0 t h : hznd, the correlation be-
tween Enjoymenr. 2nd Drker. scores was. cisse to 6.Looking at the association of
the three vmrkaholic scales with other measures an :he persor,ali:y battery,
Work lnvolvernent and Driven were both sigcificantiy correia:ed with a3 other
scales in the expected directjon. However, in the case of Work Invoivernect, the
relacionship was substantia!,oniy with Time Conrrni~ment,whereas! ir. the case
oi the Driven scaie, substantiai reiationships @s > .42)were rbund wirh Job
Stress, Perfectionism, and Kondelegarioc. The only strong correlation with
Er,ioyrnent, on the orher hand, was with Job !nvo!\wnent. These data suggest
that. when considered independently, the three measures deficing workahoiism
have different patterns of correlares.
Also reported in Table 3 are the correiations of che i)ersonaiity scales wkh rhe
Health Gompiaints meassre. (High scxes indicate mme reported s~mptoms.:

T.BLB'E 3
Correiations Between Measures for hkn" and far ~ l ' o n e n '
' 1 Driucn Jo? TC !! Stres; Perfect ND IIC
'&q - 511 .24 .63 .46 ..?,Z-, .36 4s 24
Driver: .46 - -46 .45 ....7 5 54 .5: .45 .38
-,-,
.07 - .28 .55 - "1,; .05 -.00 - .ii
--
-.-. ..
JOY .ii

TC
;r
.SZ
25 -
.d7
.i;
7
.2,

.62
-
.46 --
i 7,
.-, .4, -E
JQ
.-.
79
.-75
.23
,
.:c
-
-.OI
, Ic.

Stress .33 .66 -.il "54 ..:,:. - .50 .32 ..I .L

Perfect ,i:,
2 i
.65 ..I?20 21 "46 - .46 .!i
-,
ND
--
7
l
.i 55 - 9 .If -.a4 .41 .iP - 25
HC .Ci .3t - ..,,
, .I3 .04 .45 29 .3C -

Note. The corrdations for women appea; above the diagonal. For men, c$ = 132, and 7,; = .17.
r,,: = 23. For women, d j = 155. T , =~ .16,
~ T , ~ , = .2 1. &'I = Work Invoivnent; joy = Enjoymen:

-
of Woric; TC = Time Cornm~:men:: JI = Job Involvemenr; Stress = Joh Stress; Perfect =
Perfectionislr.; N 2 = Non4rlegation; HC Health Complaints.
"c = l j 4 . "n = I5:.
 Sigcificant positive correiarions were found with the job Stress, Perfectmiisrr,,
Nonaelegation. and driven Scaies and sigr~ificantnega:ii,e correlations with
E ~ j c y m e n tof Work.

Identificatiort of Profiles

T h e correla:ions among the measures were of less, interesr than iciencificatio:- of

profiles of scores on rhe trio of' workahoIism measures and corriparisor: of the
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

groups exhibiting the various profiles on other variables. The initial step was to
determine whether ciusrers oi individuals would be found whose sccre profries
corresponded to our d e h i t i o n of the workaholic and the work enthusias:, as
well as to determine whether other score profiles would emerge. Scores on each
of:he core characteristics were first transformed inrs t scores, separately for each
sex, in order to standardize the variances of the scales. CIus:er analvses were
ther, performed o n these standardized measures, using Ward's (1963.1method.
Preiiminary analyses suggested rhat the distance within :he clusters c o d S be
minimized with the use of a soiction that invalved six or iewer clusters.
3 .

Therefore. c l ~ s t e rsoIutions resuitrng in three, f o x , five, and six Frofiles were

examined for each sex. The profiles that emerged in the six..cluster soinricr,!
which were basicaily the same for men and women, were the mos: concepruailv
distinct and easily interpreted, The six-cluster solution was therefore adopted.
Because cluster-analytic techniques assign all individuals :o :he profile t h e y
most nearly march, each conrained some ~ndiriiduakwh- d d nor acceptabiy fit
the profile on one or n o r e scaies. 70 remedy :his,, we set appropriete cutoff :
scores far each cluster on the three core scales and removed individzals whose
scores or: any of these scales fell outside these cutoffs. The scores of rhese
individuals were [her. examined to see if:hey fit any of the other profiles; those
that did were placed :n the appropriate group. Fourteen mer, and Sf: women
were redirected in this manner. T h e 2 1 men and 3":vonen whc~did nor fir into
any of the profiles were dropped from rhe sample. The percexages cf men and
women who Rr each profile after the cufoff scores were app'l~edare reportea In
. .
Table I . Pis observed, rt was possibie to ciassify '8490 of the men and 73% of the
women. AIso shown in this cable are the mean :scores c n the three core
characteristics far each profile.
Inspectmn of Table 3 shows :hat :nu of the clusters correspond to 02: z prlori
definirions of rhe Workaho:,ic profile (above average on Work Involvement and
Driver,. below average on Enjovment? and the Work Enthusiast profile (above
average o n work Ini~olvementand Enjoynem, below average or; Driven?. A
third c i s t e r , containing individuais we labeled Enti.,usirrsric W ~ r ~ h o l i ccom-
s,
bines features of both - this group is above average on all three measures.
The fourth cluster, L'rter,gqed K'vkers, represenzs the oppowe exreme, 1s:
members be;ng below average cn ail :he measares. Members of the 5fth duster.
Rdizxed Workers, are Seiow average o n W'ork Involvement an6 Drxer,. b ~ t
 TABLE 4
Profile Means (in z scores) and Percentage of Sample Seionging to Each Group
5 c.
< . I:-
>fi

'Kd \V w k
T i
Perzntcge
Grotip Name Inr!oit,emcr,: Driver. 5~oyne~: 3! Scmple
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

above average on Eqcrrnerit. The finai ciuster, Drserdxznted' W d e r s . :n:!:iJes

those below tiyerage on Work In\wl;~ementsnd Enpvment, b;: abzve average
on Drxerz.

Demographic Characteristics of the Profiles

. .
The first set of analyses performed on the clustered data iri~oivec-ide:.erm:nlng
the demographic characterisrics associated wl:k each pro6Ie. These analyses
,.
were carried out :.i-. chi-square tests 01 ~ndependexe2x2 one-way; analyses of
varian-e (ANCi'b7r"ts)for each sex separateiv.' In both sexes, cins~ermembership

'Due tc the small frequencies in the divorced, separa:eii, and widowet caEegories, respcindexs
were ciassified as c ~ r r e x l pbeir~geithe; zm-ried o: mmarried. F3: thr anaiws of educa:ionsi lwei,
individ-als were placed in one g n u ? if they reported holclirlg ;PhC and in another group if the\;
repor:ed t~oidinga h l A or less. The acadernir rarA variabic wa: aiso sp1i: in:u t w ievds;
~ inclwiciaais
wh.3 responde3 t ! a they heid the titie professor were place2 ic ;me g r w p . all instructors, assistan:.
2nd assoc:ate professors were pln& in 3 S C C O I ~g r w p l i e s ~ n d e n t sa h Listed admiri~s:rative
instead oT academic rariits i i x . , dean, co~nselor)were not inciuied ir, this anriivs~s.
 was found ro be unrelated (ps > 2 5 ) t o marital status, ievel of ed.xa:ion, and
academic work. ,4NC\\-;As carried out on the respondents' age and numher of
?'.
minor children also indicated n o sigr:ificant differences amcng the pro>ies,

Comparison of the Profiles on Work-Related Measures

The next set of analcses compared she means of the profiks on each of the f:ve
work-related measures by one-way ANOVAs. The mean scores ere reported ir:
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

i hie 5 for men and in Table 6 for wornen, T'ne F rack far each ANC?i7A
sy

appears beion. the tabled means. AII Fs were either significanr i p < .25i or
epproached significance ( p < .08j.4 Due to the differing sizes of the groups we
wished ro compare, we employed the Games-HowelI Tes: (Games, Keseirnar., 6r
, .
Rogan, IPE1; laccard, Becker, & Wood, 1954),a pairwise comparison reczxque
rhat has been demonstrated to be robust and powerki in such a situatior.. The
resuits of the comparisons are also shown in Table 5 and 6. The numbers thar
appear beiow each rnear: indicate the identity of the groups whose meaiis
significand-<differ from that of the giver: pro& ar the 2 5 Ievel or Sevond.
Inspection of rhe tables indicates that, far both men and women, Y ~ r k a h o i i c s
and Work Enthasiasts did nor differ significantly on Job Invo!.i~ementand Time
Commitment, both groups dispia-ying elevated means in comparisons t o the
remaining g:o:;pj. Workahoiics, howeverl were significantiy higher than Work
Errthusiastz on the job Stress, Feriectanism, a d Nondelege:ion Scales, as
predicted.
Ccrnparisons of the entire se: o i profiles on the various measares a x aIso of
interest. I2 men, Enthusiastic Workaholics and Disenchanted Workers joined
with the B~oritaholics with respect to the Perfec:ionism, job Stress, 2nd
Kandelegation Scales, ciispizying signficandy higher means than '%!ark Ezthu-
siasts, Relaxed Workers, and Lhengaged Workers. The means o i the
Disenchanted 'Ji'orkers o n these three measures were s:miiar to rhose of the
R'orkaholics and Enthusiastic. Workaholics; like the two laxer groups, Disen-
chanted Workers scored significant!? higher than Work Enthusiasts and
Cnengageci R'orkers or, Perfectionism 2nd Nondeiegarinn and higher than
Relaxed V70rkers and h e n g a g e d 'Xorkers o n the measure of job Sxess. These
group differences reflect the substantiai zemorder correiatims beween rhe
Driven Scaie and the measures of Job Stress, Perfectionism, an2 Nonciekgacion,
:he three profiies high on the Driver, scale differing on these measures froxi the
profiies low on this variable. The pattern o i awnen's scores on these measures
was very simiia:. On the Time Comxitrnen: scale, the t r ~ oh g h in W;..rclrk
Hnvclvemeni Wo:k Enthusiasts, Workaholics, and Enthus:;astic Workaholicsi

'Arialysis performed using ciuscei membership without the appiicarioc of cuts$ s i x e s yieided
sirniar resuits, ar did performing rhese analvses w t b r n a x a i stat-1s. nu:nSer oi <+.ii+en, highest
degree earneci, a r d academic ;a& :nciuded aa covariates.
 : c . LC 5,
.c' . n
; .c. c
c.>-
v'
-. -"" . -
. . .
rSLT.Pr.CG'S- . 1; 9
V
r., w N I-. rr. In r--

-
. " .
mr--<2i+.iiz
x -4
a
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015
 4 SPENCE AND ROBEINS

were found in both sexes ro hzve srgnificantiy higher scores :han the three
profiles iow i s Work Involvement.
As for the job, !nvelvernent measure. the three gronps high in Work Involve-
ment (W'ork Enthusiasts: Workaholics, and Enrhssiastic Woricaholics) were
joined bv the Relaxed Workers; these four g r o q e scored higher rhan the
Unenffaged and Disenchanged Workers. The sinilarirg of the Relaxed Workers
to those high in Work InvoIvemenr is zttributabie :o 'their high scores or:
E~joyment.(Recall th2: Enjoyment was substaatia3y correizted with Job in-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

voivement.) The Unengaged and Disenckzcted Workers, of conrse, were low or;
both qssiiries- Work hvolvernen: a r d Enjoymenr-related to, J o b Invoive--
menc.
-
i he nexr pair of acalyses compared the groups on the mmber of hodrs
participzcts reported working during an average week and an average weekend.
-i he means for these measures are reporre2 in Table 4.
Among men, t i e N'ork Enthusiasts reported working :he most h o x s during
the week and ever the weekend. folioa/ed by the Workaholics and EnSiuslastic
Workzhciics, Akhough the means of the latter two groups are higher than those
far the Relaxed, Disenchanted, and Unengagez Workers, cn!y the Work
Enthusiasts consisrentlp differed significantly fron t h e n o c both meassres. The
data &om evsmer? were less clear-cut. As in men, Work Enthus:asrs reporred
working most during the week, fallowed 57; :he Workaholics and rhe Ecthusi-
astic. 'Workalholics. Pzim~isecompzriscns indicated that the Work Enthusiasts
reporred working signifkactiy longer during the week than ciid Disenchmted
and Unengaged Workers: the mean of h e Enth:~siastio'J(.'orkahnl~cswas. also
~ignificant!~ higher than that of the Oisenchanred Workers. For the weekend
measure, :t was the Enthusiastic. Workahoiics and the Workaholics niho re-
por:ed workrng the greatest number of hours; the Wcrk Enrhus~astsexhihted a
lower mean than expected. The o n h signifmnt dliferences, however, were
betewen rhe Enthus:asac Workaholics, c n the one hand, and the Wnrk
Enth~siasts.P:senchanteJ Workers. and L'nengageJ ~ w - k e ron ~ , the other.

Comparisons on Health Measures

The resuits of the AWOVAs cc)rnparing profiles on the E-IeaIth Conp':ainrs

measure are reporced 11-r Table 6.
As expected, Workahdics of both sexes reported significactiy rnore heaith
complain:^ thar, Work Enrh&asts. Among women, Workaholics reported a
significantly greaser nunher of heaith c~mplaintsthar, did. aii other grmp:
except the Disenchanted Vyorkers. Comparisons of the scores for men reveal a
similar pattern of mean scores, with Disenchanted K ' O T ~ Preporting
~S a signifi-
candy greater cumber of compiainrs thzc Work Ectb.uslasts, Relzxed Workers,
and Unengaged Workers, and Workaholics reporring rnore aches and pains
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015
 TABLE 8
Means for Each Croup and Restlts of ANOVAs mcb Parwise Comparisons for Men
and Women on S3eaiti-i Com~kilritsStale
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

than Work Enthusiasts and Re'raxed Workers, Elsenchanted 'Xsrkers have in

common with &ove average scores, or? che Driver! scaie and below
-
zverage scores or: rhe ~tr!cvmect scale.

-5

i ne outcomes of our analyses demonstrate the ur.iit\. oi assignmg men and

women who zre h ~ g h i yrnvested iri wrrk ro s&ca:egorles rather rhari !irm$ng
them a!! cogether unaer a smgfe iabe! such as workakolisx. R'hen amount of
enlormenr and the feeling of bemg compeiied or drwen to work are taken :nto
?.

accounr, ciuster analyses revealed that subgroups exhibitrng x7ar:ous prociies

with respect to these additionai qualities actually occur in both sexes, F ~ r t h e r -
more, the subgroups differ. as pred;cred, ir, a number of other attributes. For
example, the high degree of perfectionism and cnwiiiingness to deiegate respon.
sibiixy to others thst observers have attribiltecj rc. workahoiics (i.e., an
undifferentiated group of work-invobed inciividuals:) are found in those we have
labeled as Wmkahoiics bur noc irs those we have iabeled a. Work Enthusiasts.
Also, the former bclt not :he iarter zre elevated in :he amount of stress rher
experience in their jobs and have mcre healrh comp1a:nts.
Although these resuits are highly suggestive, a cumber of important issrres
remain unaddressed. High or, rhe list is the questior, of the reiationship between
the various profiles and adequacy of performance. 'if scores on the Work
Invoivenaent Scaie are considered in isolation, it seems highiy Iikeiy that the
correlation d l Se posirive. T h ~ comeration
s is based or! cine results of ongoing
xuciles wti2 students, in which we have dernonstre:ed that scores on the Work
Invcivertlent Scaie are subsran:iailg correiaced :E both sexes wrth several scales
deveioped in ?reviaas research, narnelv Achievemenr Strivings (Spence et al.,
 1987)and the Mastery and Work Orientation scales from the Work and Family
Orientation Qxstionnaire (Spence Ex HeImreich, 1983!. These scales have bee3
found tc be reiated to measnres of real-iife performance in a number of ciifieren:
sanpIes (e.g., grades ir, college students; Spence & Hehreich, 1983; Spence et
al., 19871, number of publications, and citations EO their work ii; academic
scientists (Heirnreich, Spence, Bearre, Lucker, & Mattheas. 1980;Helmreich,
Spence, & Pred, 1988). The question of centrai concern is wherher
workahoiisrn, as ure have defined the concept, is associated with poorer perfor-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

rnance rhan work enthusiasm because such characteristics as

noncieiegation, and job stress that are found in workaholics have deieterious
effects. Several studies are cxrentiy being initiated to test this possibilirv.
A second question concerns the implications ofthe greater nunber of heakh
conrplaicts reported 5). those exhibiting the workahoiic and the disenchanted
profiies. In prior studies (e.g., Costa 6r h4cCrae, i.357;Smith, Pope, Kiodewalt,
6r Poultoc, 1989), it has beer, established that inclividua!~exl-iibxir,g anxierv
and other neurotic symptoms report more physical symptoms than others. It is
likely tha:; the workaholics and others elevated or, the 105 Stress scale of mi:
study rend ro be more generally anxious than others. Some investigators je.g.,
Costa & McCrae, 1987;Watson & Pennehaker, 1989)dispute the d i d i t y oi
such reports bv anxious persons, both as indicators of current health status,
, .
determined by objective means, and as predictors ot txrure iI'tness. On the orher
hand, ocher ir.vestiga:ors (e.g.: Friedmar. 5r Booth-Kewiey, 1957;Taylor, 1992)
claim that chronic trait anxietv increases ~ulnerabiii:~ to pkgsicai ii!ness. :he
-
significance of the health complaints data thus remiins probiemar~c.The causai
direction in the data we obtained also remains uncertain: ir is possibie, at ieasr
in some instances, that individuals who chronicaily suffer minor healrh prob-
lems may as a result enjoy their work less, experience more job, stress, and so
forth. We are cuxently ir.iriating studies that may how scme light on the
meaning of our correiational findmgs.

Research for this article was supported in part bv a grant ro Janer T. Spence from
the University of Texas Research Institute.

Boronson, W. {1476i. The workaholic in yo^. hdonq, 5 , 72-35,

Canrarow, E. (1973). W'omen workahoiics. 3fo:iier Jones, 6, 56.
n v
~ n e r r m g t o n D.
, (1980:. The work e:hlc: Working eulues arid uaiues :.kc u'&. New York .AM.%CCSLf.
Costa, F. T.. Jr.. & i R. R. (1383. i\;eil:o:icism,
McCrae. somatic compizints, and &seat-e: is <he Ozric
 7 8 SPENCE AND ROBBINS

worse thar: the hltel .!oumai of ?e~sunali:~, 55, 299-:.16.

DoerAcr. M. C., & Razxner?P. ?. 119861. Workahoiism, sex, and sex role s:ereo:yping among female
professiona!~. Sex Rnie. 14, 5%-560.
Farnswortt:, T. ;i937>.Test y u r exearice ski&. Londcn. Ebury.
Friedman. H.5..& Bod-Kewiey, . (1987). The "disease-pronc personali$: A mets-analyticei
view of :he construi.:, Anrerrca.*;Psycirolng;st, 42,539--555.
Games. P. A,. Keselman, K, J., Sr zogan, j. C. ( !9,Ui). Slm~itanecx~s pairwise mukipie com?arison
procedures f c means ~ when sample sizes are uneqaai. sychologictil Builem, 93, 594-598.
FIeimrei~h,R. t.,Spenct, j. T., Beane. Xi.E.. tuck:, C-. V., Sr Matthews, K. A. C1950). M a k q
i: ir? academic psychology: Demographic and personahry corre!a:es d a:tzinmer,t. .iourna! of
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 07:32 06 February 2015

p~s371d::3cd%odaj PsycbiogT:39, 896--908

PIelmreich, 8. L , Snt'n-e. j. T., 6r Pred, 3 . S. : ! 9 W Making I: without iosing it: Type A.
.
ack.revement motwa~icn,and scientific attainment ~evisxed.Pe:sonal::z: cnd Socictl Rycholog?.
Bullctir,, 14. P - 5 % .
Jaccard. J.: Sr-kc:, M.A., & Wmd, G~:1984:. Pairntse mcllriFllrcornparisor. pmcedures: A revew.
Ps3ch3iog;icl Rulletir.. 96,589-5".
h4a.-hlowltz. M. :iO7;'. Octoheri. 'X'oriiahal~cs.Ac:m the Board, pp. 35-31.
M ~ L ? - XI;..
,,i~~witz. : f 9%). Kil'o-icahdies:Lrcrng with :hen, rra&ng u,:tih r n m . Zeadmg. M A : .4ddison-
Wesirv.
Mcyer, FI. (i974i. The boss ought rc :ake morc time ofi. .zor:unr. 83, 14C:-142, 2?9-230.
hkcirtf.., F.! Meie;. P.;Wichem, F..Brewer, 3., Sr Siripner, 5.{19",:! Tiir worlnhok and his ,prr.ii?.
Grand Rapids, Xi: Bake: Bo& tlousi.
Mosier, S K. ~ 1 ~ Workr,k~Elcs.
3 : A? anaiyis q! :hew stress, succeir anapric'ririrs UnpuS1lshe.J' masters
thesls, University of Texas at Austin.
Sates. W. 1,1971'!.Con!essior,s O ~ wo~itaholic:
C Tire j ( ~ t sdbmr work addiction. New York: Worit.
Smith, T.'Ji'.. Pope, M.EL. Rhodewalt: F.. 61 hu!:on, j. I*. (19,U')j.Optimism, nexoticism: coping,
an2 syrnpcorr. reprts. Ar. a!~err.a:ivr xxe:preta:ior: of xhe Life Orientatior, Test. Jouma! o j
?e:sonalit? and Sacid ?sl.cholagy. 9.54.2-548.
.-
Spence, j. ;.. & Helrnrekh. R.t.(l%?j. Achievemen:-relared moaves and bei~avior.In J. ?'. Spence
{Ed.:, P.c,Lie< ement and mhreu!cmenr motwrs: Pzycholc~gimian.? sor&grcui abpoache; Cpp, 13-74:
San Fiancisco: Freeman.
Spence, 5.1.. Heimrei:h, R.L.. &?red, R.E. (1987).impatience versa achie-vement striving in the
-;vpc A partern: 3iit.ren::d effects on sriliients' hea!:h and aca;le".k achievemen:. ~ o u v t i l3j
AppLied Psych:)ioo, 75, 512-528.
Sprankic, J., 6: Ebel, H.:1957). Tk ~orknholicy x h r n c New Yo&: Walkr.
Tapio:, S. E,1199(?1.Health psvchol~gv:The sciencc and the ficiii. A2cric;r; ? & & g , . i s : ,45, 43-j?.
- .
: ago;., S, F.$& hlarrin. J. (1987: Concroiiing one's career. Ir; M.P. Zanna & J. M.Darie-i (Ecis.),
Thc cowieat ac&:nic. -4. ptil;ricuI p d e !or :he S e p m ~ n gjociai scrcntist Ii;iisdeir. Kj. Lawrence
Erhaxrr: Asso:iares, h .
Ward. 1. H r 1957). Eirrarchicai grouping tc optimize and oh!ectivc knctixx. Journci o f rhe A m e r i x n
Sttir:s:!cd rlssocram::, 58,236-244.
Warsor:, D.. & Per:neSaker, j. V. 11985% HeakF; corr.plain:s, mess: and distress: Expioring tht-
central d e of negative afkctivi:~. Ps~hoiogiccriRecjie;b, 96,234.254.