See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263115568

The relationship between strong motivation to work, "workaholism", and

health

Article in Psychology and Health · July 2007

DOI: 10.1080/14768320600941814

CITATIONS READS

196 3,624

3 authors, including:

Cecilie Schou Andreassen Hege R Eriksen

University of Bergen Høgskulen på Vestlandet
85 PUBLICATIONS 10,945 CITATIONS 171 PUBLICATIONS 10,658 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hege R Eriksen on 05 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology & Health

ISSN: 0887-0446 (Print) 1476-8321 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpsh20

The relationship between strong motivation to

work, “workaholism”, and health

Cecilie Schou Andreassen , Holger Ursin & Hege R. Eriksen

To cite this article: Cecilie Schou Andreassen , Holger Ursin & Hege R. Eriksen (2007) The
relationship between strong motivation to work, “workaholism”, and health, Psychology &
Health, 22:5, 615-629, DOI: 10.1080/14768320600941814

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14768320600941814

Published online: 11 Jun 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 607

View related articles

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpsh20

Download by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] Date: 05 November 2015, At: 01:22

 Psychology and Health
July 2007; 22(5): 615–629

The relationship between strong motivation to work,

‘‘workaholism’’, and health

CECILIE SCHOU ANDREASSEN1, HOLGER URSIN1,2, &

Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

HEGE R. ERIKSEN1,2
1
Department of Education and Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Norway and
2
Unifob Health, University of Bergen, Norway

(Received 27 June 2005; in final form 10 July 2006)

Abstract
The aims of the present study were to examine (1) psychometric properties of Spence and
Robbins’ measures of the components of workaholism and (2) relations between
workaholism and health-related outcomes [job stress, burnout, work engagement, and
subjective health complaints (SHC)]. Two hundred and thirty-five bank employees
completed questionnaires measuring workaholism, job stress, burnout, work engagement,
and SHC. Factor analyses suggested a two-factor model of workaholism, ‘‘Drive’’ and
‘‘Enjoyment of Work’’. There were significant relations between workaholism subscales
and SHC, job stress, burnout, and work engagement. The ‘‘Drive’’ subscale correlated
positively with job stress and SHC, and marginally with burnout and work engagement.
The ‘‘Enjoyment of Work’’ subscale correlated negatively with job stress, burnout, and
SHC. The results showed that a two-factor model of workaholism provided the best fit for
Norwegian data, supported a differentiation of enthusiastic and nonenthusiastic
workaholic features, and were related in predictable ways to SHC, burnout, and work
engagement, as predicted from contemporary cognitive stress theory.
Keywords: Workaholism, stress, burnout, work engagement, subjective health complaints

Introduction
Oates (1971) used the term ‘‘workaholism’’ in his book ‘‘Confessions of a
Workaholic’’ to describe what he referred to as his own uncontrollable need to
work constantly. Since then many different definitions of ‘‘workaholism’’ have

Correspondence: Hege R. Eriksen, Department of Education and Health Promotion,

University of Bergen, Christies gt 13, N-5015 Bergen, Norway. Tel: þ47-55589975.
E-mail: hege.eriksen@psych.uib.no

ISSN 0887-0446 print/ISSN 1476-8321 online ß 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14768320600941814
 616 C. S. Andreassen et al.

been proposed, and there is no consensus about how to define or categorize

workaholism or even whether to accept the concept (Burke, 2000; Burke,
Burgess, & Oberklaid, 2003; Burke, Richardsen, & Martinussen, 2002;
Robinson, 1998; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997; Spence & Robbins, 1992).
A review of the scientific ‘‘workaholism’’ field found only 17 published articles
based on empirical data, and several of these were based on the same sample
(McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Burke, 2003).
In addition to being preoccupied with their work, ‘‘workaholics’’ are described
as task-oriented, compulsive, perfectionistic, neurotic, rigid, highly motivated,
resourceful, impatient, and self centered. They rationalize overtime, identify
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

themselves with work, and lack the ability to relax (Bonebright, Clay, &
Ankenmann, 2000; Killinger, 1991; Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997;
Taris, Schaufeli, & Verhoeven, 2005). The main feature, however, is the high
investment in work. Mosier (1983) defined those who worked more than 50 h per
week as ‘‘workaholics’’, while Machlowitz (1980) defined ‘‘workaholics’’ as
individuals who always devote more time and energy to work than the work
situation demands. For Machlowitz (1980), therefore, the main issue was the
attitude towards work, not the number of working hours. The time spent on
work-related activities is not necessarily negative for the person or the
organization for which the person works (Scott et al., 1997). A more precise
formulation may be that ‘‘workaholism’’ is voluntarily spending so much time on
work-related activities that it produces negative consequences for social, family,
and other activities (Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1998). The ‘‘workaholic’’ continues
thinking about work even if not at work, and work beyond demands that are
expected from the organization or that are necessary for the person’s own
economy (Scott et al., 1997).
Since some authors view ‘‘workaholism’’ in positive terms (Machlowitz, 1980;
Scott et al., 1997), others in negative (Killinger, 1991; Oates, 1971; Robinson,
1998), it has been hard to identify one homogenous group of ‘‘workaholics’’.
Recent empirical work has offered the possibility of differentiating at least two
‘‘workaholic’’ types. A simplistic distinction between ‘‘enthusiastic’’ and ‘‘none-
nthusiastic’’ ‘‘workaholics’’ appears to be meaningful (Bonebright et al., 2000;
Burke et al., 2002; Kanai, Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996; Spence & Robbins,
1992).
According to Spence and Robbins (1992, p. 161) the important elements of
‘‘workaholism’’ are that ‘‘the affected individual is highly committed to work,
devoting a good deal of time to it’’. They defined and measured a ‘‘workaholic’’
by three independent dimensions: ‘‘Work Involvement’’, ‘‘Drive’’ and
‘‘Enjoyment of Work’’. From this they identified two ‘‘workaholic’’ subgroups
based on cluster analyses: ‘‘workaholics’’ and ‘‘enthusiastic workaholics’’. The
‘‘workaholic’’ is highly involved in work, feels driven to work due to an internal
pressure, and experiences low degree of work enjoyment. The ‘‘workaholic’’ feels
depressed when not working, is compulsive and lacks work enjoyment (Spence &
Robbins, 1992). However, there are also ‘‘enthusiastic workaholics’’. They are
not only very much involved with work, but experience a great deal of satisfaction
 Workaholism 617

in doing so. To qualify as an enthusiastic ‘‘workaholic’’ there should be high

levels of ‘‘Enjoyment of Work’’, ‘‘Drive’’, and ‘‘Work Involvement’’ (Spence &
Robbins, 1992).
Later empirical research involving factor analyses have replicated the Drive
and Enjoyment of Work subscales, and demonstrated acceptable psychometric
properties across populations (Burke et al., 2002; Kanai et al., 1996; McMillan,
Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002). However, it appears that the Work
Involvement subscale has not shown the same acceptable psychometric qualities
(Burke et al., 2002), and it has been suggested that this scale should be eliminated
from the instrument (Kanai et al., 1996; McMillan et al., 2003). Kanai et al.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

(1996), for example, classified two ‘‘workaholic’’ subgroups including only the
Drive and Enjoyment of Work subscales. The Drive and Enjoyment of Work
subscales were divided into high scores and low scores at the midpoint of each
subscale, and thereafter used to identify: workaholics, high in Drive and low in
Enjoyment of Work and work enthusiasts, high in Drive and Enjoyment of Work.
Consequently, despite the exclusion of the Work Involvement subscale, these
subgroups partly correspond to the original two ‘‘workaholic’’ profiles presented
by Spence and Robbins (1992).
‘‘Workaholism’’ may have negative health consequences. Our main questions
are whether this is true, and, if so, for whom this may be true. There are almost
no hard data on any such connections, but relations to potential risk factors for
illness and disease have been postulated. Recently, McMillan and O’Driscoll
(2004) reported similar psychological, physical, and general health between
workaholics and nonworkaholics in their New Zealand study. We examine three
possible negative health outcomes: ‘‘burnout’’, ‘‘job stress’’, and ‘‘subjective
health complaints’’ (SHC).
‘‘Burnout’’ has been described as ‘‘a syndrome of emotional exhaustion,
cynicism, and low professional and self efficacy that can occur among individuals
that work with people’’ (Maslach, 1982, p. 3; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
2001). Burnout has been suggested as a potential consequence of ‘‘workaholism’’
(Lowman, 1993; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997; Taris et al., 2005). ‘‘Work
engagement’’ has been defined as a direct opposite of burnout and is
characterized by energy, involvement, and efficiency (Maslach & Leiter, 1997),
and as a relatively stable condition characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzàlez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002).
The second potential health risk is related to ‘‘stress’’. There are few published
studies that have examined the relations between ‘‘workaholism’’ and ‘‘stress’’,
but all conclude that ‘‘workaholics’’ report a higher degree of stress than a control
group (Bonebright et al., 2000; Kanai et al., 1996; Spence & Robbins, 1992;
Taris et al., 2005). The issue, then, is what stress is, and whether that in itself
represents any health risk.
In the often confusing literature on stress, there are some consensus statements.
There are no linear relationships between the load (‘‘stressors’’) and the resulting
stress response, there is high individual variance, and the important stimuli are
emotional (Levine & Ursin, 1991). Stress responses occur in all species at all ages
 618 C. S. Andreassen et al.

in all cultures, and may be regarded as a necessary part of our adaptive system,
an alarm in a homeostatic system. The individuals react to challenges and threats
based on their expectancies to the stimuli and to their available responses.
When there is no solution, the alarm may develop into a sustained alarm. This
approach to stress has been elaborated in a formal system of definitions of the
various cognitive factors that determine the stress responses in humans and
in other animals, the ‘‘Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress’’ (CATS) (Ursin &
Eriksen, 2004).
Briefly, this theory builds on the observation that in all species examined a
positive expectancy of available responses in threatening situations leads to low,
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

not high, somatic stress levels, measured as subjective feelings (‘‘job stress’’),
hormone levels, muscle tension, or immunological responses (Ursin & Eriksen,
2004). An acquired positive expectancy, therefore, is related to positive
motivations and health. This theoretical stress framework suggests that if the
enthusiastic ‘‘workaholics’’ are enthusiastic due to positive outcome expectancies
(‘‘coping’’ according to the CATS definition), we expect low stress levels, low
reports of ‘‘job stress’’, and good health. If the nonenthusiastic ‘‘workaholics’’ have
low enthusiasm due to low expectancies of success (helplessness, hopelessness),
CATS predicts higher stress levels, more complaints of ‘‘job stress’’, and health
problems.
We, therefore, in the present study, test the relationship between the two types
of ‘‘workaholics’’ and their stress levels measured as their subjective feelings and
reports of ‘‘job stress’’, ‘‘burnout’’, and their general, SHC. ‘‘Subjective health
complaints’’ is defined as health complaints with few or no objective findings, and
include muscle pain, tiredness, mood disturbances, fatigue, headaches, sleep
problems, and gastrointestinal complaints (Eriksen & Ursin, 1999; 2004). These
complaints play a prominent role in the short-term and long-term sickness
absence (Ihlebæk, Eriksen, & Ursin, 2002). Throughout history a number of
different labels have been used to classify such complaints, these include chronic
fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, ‘‘yuppie flu’’, neurasthenia or burnout as labels
on a number of similar SHC (Eriksen & Ursin, 2002, 2004). Combinations of
high demands and negative or no response outcome expectancy are related to
SHC (Eriksen & Ursin, 1999; Tveito, Passchier, Duivenvoorden, & Eriksen,
2004).
In this article, we use a Norwegian version of the Spence and Robbins (1992)
‘‘workaholism’’ scale (Burke et al., 2002) to study the relations between different
types of ‘‘workaholism’’ and job stress, SHC, burnout, and work engagement.
Will ‘‘workaholics’’ report more job stress, burnout, and SHC? Or is it
possible that there are differences between enthusiastic and nonenthusiastic
‘‘workaholics’’ on these relationships? On the bases of previous research and
theoretical rationale, our hypotheses are as follows: (1) factor analysis will confirm
three distinct subscales, each of which will have acceptable alpha values; and
(2) different types of ‘‘workaholism’’ are expected to relate differently to reports
of job stress, burnout, work engagement, and SHC. It is expected that
 Workaholism 619

nonenthusiastic ‘‘workaholics’’ report significantly more job stress, burnout, and

SHC, and less work engagement than enthusiastic ‘‘workaholics’’.

Method
Sample
Two hundred and thirty-five bank employees participated in the study (135
(57%) females and 100 (43%) males), mean age 44.1 years (SD ¼ 9.7), ranging
from 21 to 63 years. They were recruited from a total of 500 employees who were
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

invited to participate in the study (response rate 47%). Of the subjects, 83% were
married or living with someone. Most of the sample had an education higher than
high school (78%), and 52% had education at university level. Period of service in
the company ranged from new employees to employees who had worked in the
bank for over 15 years. Most of the employees worked full time (82%), between
31 and 40 h per week (75%), and had worked in the bank more than 15 years
(64%). Of the sample 25% sat in leadership positions, whereas the rest were
consultants and customer advisers.

Instruments
The Workaholism Scales. Workaholism was measured by 22 items from a
Norwegian version of the Spence and Robbins (1992) measures of workaholism.
The Norwegian version was identical to the version used in previous empirical
Norwegian studies (Burke et al., 2002), translated by members of Burke et al.
(2002). The translation is based on standardized translation–backtranslation
procedures; Norwegian and English authors were involved in the translation.
The questions were answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree)
to 5 (strongly disagree). The questionnaire originally measures three dimensions
of workaholism: ‘‘Work Involvement’’ (eight items; ¼ 0.49) reflects the need to
spend time efficiently both at and off work, whether the individual distinguishes
between work and private life, and the ability to relax (e.g. ‘‘I like to use my time
constructively, both on and off the job’’). ‘‘Drive’’ (seven items, ¼ 0.80) reflects
internal motivation for work and how often the individual thinks about work
(e.g. ‘‘I seem to have an inner compulsion to work hard’’). ‘‘Enjoyment of Work’’
(seven items, ¼ 0.79) maps the individual’s degree of work-satisfaction (e.g.
‘‘I do more work than is expected of me strictly for the fun of it’’). The original
English version of the Enjoyment of Work scale consists of 10 items.

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Work engagement was measured
by the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2002), which consists of 17 items answered on
a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (never the last year) to 6 (daily) (e.g. ‘‘At my work
I feel bursting with energy’’). Work engagement is defined as a relatively stable
emotional condition. The questionnaire measures three dimensions of work
engagement: ‘‘Vigor’’ (six items, ¼ 0.87) reflects high levels of energy,
endurance, and will to put down effort at work. ‘‘Dedication’’ (five items,
 620 C. S. Andreassen et al.

¼ 0.91) reflects the feeling of inspiration, pride, challenge, a strong identi-

fication with work, and a feeling of what one does is important. ‘‘Absorption’’
(six items, ¼ 0.87) reflects the ability to have deep concentration and to become
so captured by the work tasks that one does not need anything else or that time
goes by without awareness. High score is defined as high work engagement
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). In addition, a sum score of all 17 items was computed
( ¼ 0.95).

Cooper stress index (CSI). Job stress was measured by a Norwegian version
(Endresen, Værnes, Ursin, & Tønder, 1987) of the CSI (Cooper, 1981). This
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

questionnaire consists of items describing physical, social, and emotional factors

that might act as ‘‘stressors’’ at work (Cooper, 1981), and were answered on a
6-point scale ranging from 0 (no stress) to 5 (much stress) (e.g. ‘‘My relationship
with my boss’’, ‘‘workload’’). The questionnaire combined four potential sources
of stressors in regard to, Promotion (four items, ¼ 0.58), Workload (three items,
¼ 0.85), Communication (eight items, ¼ 0.89), and Leadership (four items,
¼ 0.67). In addition a total sum score of job stress was calculated (sum of
22 items, ¼ 0.91).

Maslach burnout inventory-general scale (MBI-GS). This questionnaire was

constructed to measure three components of ‘‘burnout syndrome’’ (Maslach,
Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). Burnout was measured on a continuum from
engaged to ‘‘burned out’’. MBI-GS consists of 16 items answered on a 7-point
scale ranging from 0 (never in the last year) to 6 (daily) (e.g. ‘‘I feel emotionally
drained from my work’’). The questionnaire measures three dimensions of
burnout; ‘‘Exhaustion’’ (five items, ¼ 0.84) is related to the work demands,
ambiguous directives and time pressure, and is a reflection that the employees
feel drained of physical and psychological energy. ‘‘Cynicism’’ (five items,
¼ 0.74) is the dimension that reflects an indifferent or distanced attitude toward
work, and can also be an expression of lack of enthusiasm. ‘‘Professional efficacy’’
(six items, ¼ 0.77) is the dimension that aims to capture the individual
expectations about mastery in work. Burnout was defined by high scores on
the two first dimensions (exhaustion and cynicism) and low score on
the last dimension (professional efficacy) (Maslach et al., 1996) (16 items,
¼ 0.87).

Subjective health complaints were measured with the Subjective Health Complaints
Inventory (SHC) (Eriksen, Ihlebæk, & Ursin, 1999) and consists of 29 items
concerning SHC (somatic and psychological) experienced in the last 30 days.
Severity of complaints is scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (none) to 3
(severe) (e.g. neck pain, headache, anxiety, sleep problems, stomach pain, and
gas discomfort). The 29 items are scored into five subscales: Musculoskeletal
complaints (eight items, ¼ 0.78), Pseudoneurological complaints (seven items,
¼ 0.66), Gastrointestinal complaints (seven items, ¼ 0.73), Allergy (five items,
 Workaholism 621

¼ 0.45), and Cold/influenza (two items, ¼ 0.73). A total score for all items was
also computed (sum of 29 items, ¼ 0.82).

Number of working hours per week was defined as the ordinary number of hours
engaged in paid work, including overwork, per week.

Procedure
The survey was carried out in April 2002. Electronic mail and a number of
meetings were used to inform employees about the study before the questionnaire
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

was distributed. A total of 500 questionnaire packets were distributed. Packets

included information about the survey, the questionnaires, and an envelope
addressed to the research team at the University of Bergen. The employees
decided if, where and when they wanted to fill out the questions, and were asked
to return sealed envelopes to the trade union chairperson, who forwarded them to
the University of Bergen.

Statistics
Data analyses were conducted by mean of the SPSS 11.5 statistical package for
Windows and Lisrel 8.54. All alphas reported in the article are present study
alphas. Principal axes analyses with Kaiser Varimax rotation were performed on
single items to examine the factor structure of the Spence and Robbins (1992)
measures of the components of workaholism. Further confirmatory factor
analyses, based on item parceling, were performed to examine the fit between
data and model. Descriptive statistics (internal consistencies, means, standard
deviations, percentage frequencies, and intercorrelations) for each variable of
interest were calculated. Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients were
used to test the relationships between relevant subscales. Finally, to assess the
relations to workaholism in more detail, a series of multiple regression analyses
were completed using job stress, SHC, burnout, and work engagement as
dependent variables. The independent variables were entered into the equation
in two steps. Gender, age, education, professional position (measured as forced
choice of two to five alternatives) and number of years worked in the bank were
entered in the first step in order to control for possible confounding effects.

Results
Factor analysis of the Workaholism Scales
Based on previous empirical research (McMillan et al., 2002; 2003), a
confirmatory factor analysis, with item parceling, using a generalized least
squares-maximum likelihood discrepancy function was carried out on the
Workaholism Scales. The analysis was limited to three factors based on the
theory of three components of workaholism—Work Involvement, Drive, and
Enjoyment of Work (Spence & Robbins, 1992)—with a minimum Eigenvalue of
 622 C. S. Andreassen et al.
Table I. Fit measures of factorial models related to the factor structure of the Norwegian version
of the Workaholism Scales.

Goodness of fit indices

Model w2 df p NNFI CFI GFI AGFI RMSR RMSEA

3-Factor 52.53 32 0.013 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.19 0.05

2-Factor 16.69 8 0.034 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.20 0.07

Notes: NNFI ¼ Non-Normed Fit Index, CFI ¼ Comparative Fit Index, GFI ¼ Goodness of Fit
Index, AGFI ¼ Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, RMSR ¼ Root Mean Square Residual,
RMSEA ¼ Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

1.00. The analysis suggested a good fit between data and model (Table I).
However, when the confirmatory factor analysis was limited to a maximum of
two factors based on the more recent theory of two components of workaholism—
Drive and Enjoyment of Work (McMillan et al., 2002; 2003; Kanai et al., 1996),
the goodness-of-fit statistics revealed a good fit between data and model, each of
which also was beyond the desired threshold of 0.90 (Floyd & Widaman, 1995).
In, sum, the goodness-of-fit indicators in Table I suggested a good fit between
data and both models, but the model involving two components provided slightly
better results (Floyd & Widaman, 1995)1.

Correlations between workaholism components and health

There was a positive correlation between the two workaholism subscales,
Drive and Enjoyment of Work, and overall positive correlations between job
stress, burnout, and SHC (Table II). Job stress, burnout, and SHC were to a
large extent negatively correlated with work engagement, and work engagement
was positively correlated with the Enjoyment of Work scale. The Enjoyment
of Work scale correlated negatively with all job stress scales (except the
promotion-scale), burnout scales, musculoskeletal pain, and pseudoneurological
complaints. The Drive scale correlated positively with all job stress scales,
pseudoneurology and marginally with gastrointestinal complaints. In addition,
Drive correlated significantly and positively with emotional exhaustion and
absorption.

Regression analyses of workaholism components with SHC,

burnout, and work engagement as dependent variables
In order to examine the relations to workaholism in more detail, a series of
multiple regression analyses were completed using sum scores of job stress, SHC,
burnout, and work engagement as dependent variables. Independent variables
were entered into the equation in two steps. Demographic variables were entered
at Step 1, Drive and Enjoyment of Work at Step 2.
 Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

Table II. Correlations among two components of workaholism and subscales on job stress, burnout, work engagement, and SHC (N ¼ 220–235).

CSI CSI CSI CSI MBI MBI MBI UWES UWES UWES SHC SHC SHC
Scale E Lead Com Pro Wo Exh PrE Cyn Vig Ded Abs Mus Pseu Gas

D 0.20** 0.25** 0.24** 0.23** 0.28** 0.22**
0.09 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.22** 0.00 0.23** 0.17**
E –
0.17**
0.18**
0.01
0.16*
0.38**
0.34**
0.32** 0.45** 0.51** 0.54**
0.18**
0.20**
0.07
Lead – 0.75** 0.54** 0.55** 0.51** 0.22** 0.53**
0.33**
0.33**
0.18** 0.15* 0.37** 0.24**
Com – 0.60** 0.48** 0.46** 0.25** 0.54**
0.32**
0.38**
0.22** 0.22** 0.40** 0.25**
Pro – 0.33** 0.29** 0.07 0.31**
0.07
0.13 0.04 0.20** 0.27** 0.17*
Wo – 0.53** 0.14* 0.35**
0.30**
0.21**
0.07 0.18** 0.32** 0.16*
Exh – 0.37** 0.64**
0.49**
0.45**
0.28** 0.30** 0.55** 0.33**
PrE – 0.39**
0.61**
0.62**
0.49** 0.19** 0.29** 0.17**
Cyn –
0.47**
0.54**
0.35** 0.11 0.32** 0.23**
Vig – 0.81** 0.76**
0.21**
0.36**
0.24**
Ded – 0.81**
0.17*
0.32**
0.21**
Abs –
0.11
0.18**
0.15*
Mus – 0.39** 0.31**
Pseu – 0.49**

Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (D ¼ Drive scale, E ¼ Enjoyment of Work scale, CSI Lead ¼ CSI Leadership scale, CSI Com ¼ CSI Communication scale,
CSI Pro ¼ CSI Promotion scale, CSI Wo ¼ CSI Workload scale, MBI Exh ¼ Maslach Burnout Indictor Exhaustion scale, MBI PrE ¼ Maslach
Burnout Indictor Professional efficacy scale, MBI Cyn ¼ Maslach Burnout Indictor Cynicism scale, UWES Vig ¼ Utrecht Work Engagement Vigor
scale, UWES Abs ¼ Utrecht Work Engagement Absorption scale, UWES Ded ¼ Utrecht Work Engagement Dedication scale, SHC Mus ¼ Subjective
Health Complaints Musculoskeletal scale, SHC Pseu ¼ Subjective Health Complaints Pseudoneurology scale, SHC Gas ¼ Subjective Health
Complaints Gastrointestinal scale).
Workaholism
623
 Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

Table III. Multiple regression analyses examining effects of Drive and Enjoyment of Work on Job stress, Subjective Health Complaints, Burnout, and
Work engagement (N ¼ 235).

job stress SHC burnout work engagement

Variable B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE B
624 C. S. Andreassen et al.

Step 1
Age 1.09 0.15 0.01
3.70 0.06
0.05
0.28 0.12
0.19* 3.74 0.13 0.02
Gender 0.13 2.40 0.00 2.74 0.98 0.19**
0.15 1.97
0.01
0.70 2.10
0.02
Education 1.44 1.48 0.07 0.10 0.60 0.01 0.35 1.21 0.02 1.47 1.29 0.08
Position 1.17 1.31 0.06
0.33 0.54
0.04
2.65 1.08
0.17* 1.47 1.15 0.09
Years in bank 0.55 1.06 0.05 0.66 0.43 0.13
0.51 0.87
0.05 0.81 0.93 0.08
Step 2
Age
1.11 0.14
0.01
4.27 0.06
0.06
0.30 0.11
0.20** 5.16 0.11 0.03
Gender
0.86 2.24
0.03 2.50 0.96 0.17**
1.64 1.75
0.06 1.16 1.77 0.04
Education 1.00 1.37 0.05
2.13 0.59
0.00 0.17 1.07 0.01 1.32 1.09 0.08
Position 1.54 1.24 0.08
0.26 0.54
0.03
1.45 0.98
0.09
0.55 0.99
0.03
Years in bank 0.12 0.99 0.01 0.56 0.43 0.11
1.27 0.78
0.12 1.85 0.78 0.17*
Drive 1.03 0.19 0.35*** 0.28 0.08 0.23*** 0.58 0.15 0.24*** 5.28 0.15 0.02
Enjoyment
0.91 0.24
0.25***
0.22 0.10
0.14*
1.41 0.18
0.47*** 1.78 0.19 0.57***

Notes: Job stress: R2 ¼ 0.01 for Step 1;
R2 ¼ 0.15 for Step 2 (p-values < 0.001), Subjective health complaints: R2 ¼ 0.07 for Step 1;
R2 ¼ 0.06 for
Step 2 (p-values < 0.001), Burnout: R2 ¼ 0.05 for Step 1;
R2 ¼ 0.22 for Step 2 (p-values < 0.001), Work engagement: R2 ¼ 0.02 for Step 1;
R2 ¼ 0.29
for Step 2 (p-values < 0.001), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
 Workaholism 625

Workaholism components and job stress. Table III shows the results of the multiple
regression analyses examining the effects of workaholism components on job
stress. Drive and Enjoyment of Work were the only two significant variables at
Step 2 (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.13), explaining 13% of the total variance in job stress.

Workaholism components and SHC. Table III also displays the results of
the multiple regression analyses examining the effects of workaholism components
on SHC. Gender, Drive, and Enjoyment of Work were the significant variables
at Step 2 (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.10), explaining 10% of the total variance in SHC.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

Workaholism components and burnout. For burnout as the dependent variable,

age, Drive, and Enjoyment of Work were the significant variables at Step 2
(adjusted R2 ¼ 0.24). The model with these main effects accounted for 24% of
the total variance in this outcome.

Workaholism components and work engagement. A two-step regression of effects on

work engagement was also conducted. For work engagement, years worked in
bank and Enjoyment of Work were the only two significant variables at Step 2
(adjusted R2 ¼ 0.29), explaining 29% of the total variance.

Discussion
The Norwegian version of the Spence and Robbins (1992) measurement of
workaholism did not reproduce the expected three subscales. Only two of the
original three subscales (Drive and Enjoyment of Work) met the reliability and
validity requirements expected for scales of this type, with high internal
consistency and moderate intercorrelations, as in studies with the original test
(Bonebright et al., 2000; Burke et al., 2002; Kanai et al., 1996; Spence &
Robbins, 1992). The subscale Work Involvement was excluded, therefore, due to
low internal consistency (0.49) and insufficient factor loadings. The confirmatory
factor analysis supported the two-factor model. The two-factor solution has also
been preferred by Kanai et al. (1996) and McMillan et al. (2002); both excluded
the Work Involvement scale. This solution differs from the revised workaholism
scale (WorkBAT-R, McMillan et al., 2002).
Since there is no overlap in the questions in the standard workaholic
questionnaires and the SHC, common method variance (Lindell & Whitney,
2001; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) has not been controlled
for in our correlation studies. There are no previous studies of the relationships
between these two matrices. The relatively low response rate and the lack of
information on nonresponders caution against generalizations. Most participants
were in lower level customer service banking positions, with limited opportunities
for high levels of work enjoyment and drive to work. Furthermore, we have no
direct data on coping, negative affectivity or sustained activation, or on objective
health risk factors. Longitudinal and broader test batteries are required to
elucidate these problems. However, the findings on the SHC in themselves are
 626 C. S. Andreassen et al.

important, since such complaints, in the absence of any objective laboratory

findings, are the leading causes of long-term sickness compensation and disability
pensions in Western Europe.
The expected positive relation between Enjoyment of Work and work engage-
ment was confirmed by the results of the study. Spence and Robbins (1992)
and other researchers (Bonebright et al., 2000; Burke et al., 2002; Kanai et al.,
1996) used dichotomized data and classified individuals into types of workers when
reporting their results. We have preferred multiple regression analyses using the full
variance of the data. Drive and Enjoyment of Work explained a significant
proportion of the variance for job stress, SHC, burnout, and work engagement.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

This supports that the workaholic scoring pattern is related to health problems
quantified by job stress, burnout, and SHC. However, our findings show that these
health problems occur in the nonenthusiastic workaholic (high scores on Drive and
low on Enjoyment of Work). In the enthusiastic workaholic (high scores on Drive
and Enjoyment of Work) we do not see these relationships. We do not see any
indications that the obsession with work (the Drive) measured by these scales carry
any health risk as long as the person enjoys the situation. However, when the
enthusiasm is gone, health may be disappearing as well.
Our findings are in accord with recent theoretical developments within stress
research, emphasizing the importance of subjective psychological factors (Ursin &
Eriksen, 2004), and the balance between efforts and rewards (Siegrist, 1996).
Investing large amounts of time and effort into the job without getting the
expected reward, as may be the case for the nonenthusiastic workaholic, is a
health risk (Siegrist, Klein, & Voigt, 1997). The differences between the
enthusiastic workaholic, with good health, and the nonenthusiastic workaholic
with higher reports of job stress, burnout, and SHC are in accordance to the
expectations from the ‘CATS’ (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). When healthy individuals
who expect to solve problems (coping) are exposed to challenges at work, they
show a fast short lasting activation with fast recovery. This normal physiological
response does not seem to represent any health risk (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004).
If, however, an individual is faced with challenges they do not expect to handle
well, health risks occur in man and animals (Murison & Overmier, 1993). This is
accompanied by sustained activation and slow or no recovery (Sluiter, Frings-
Dresen, Meijman, & van der Beek, 2000, Sluiter, van der Beek, Frings-Dresen,
2003; Kristenson, Eriksen, Sluiter, Starke, & Ursin, 2004). High job demands in
combination with negative or no response outcome expectancy (lack of coping) is
related to increased reports of SHC (Eriksen et al., 1999; Tveito et al., 2004).
From exercise physiology, we know that challenges are necessary for building
up resources and obtain training. However, a period of recovery is necessary to
rebalance the organism. One reason for the difference in health variables between
the nonenthusiastic workaholic and the enthusiastic workaholic may relate to
differences in recovery. Incomplete recovery from mentally and physically
demanding tasks may occur, particularly when there is also low job control and
low anticipation of rewards from the work (Sluiter et al., 2000). This may lead to
reports of an increase in the perceived need for recovery, more emotional
 Workaholism 627

exhaustion, and poor sleep quality (Sluiter, van der Beek, & Frings-Dresen, 1998,
1999, Sluiter et al., 2000, 2003). Even if we have no measures confirming or
disconfirming this possibility, one important aspect of being a nonenthusiastic
workaholic may be the health consequences of sustained activation combined
with poor recovery.
The present study demonstrates the usefulness of the Workaholism Scales for
a Norwegian population of bank employees, when a two-factor solution is used.
The study also shows that the two factors, ‘‘Drive’’ and ‘‘Enjoyment of Work’’
have specific relations to job stress, work engagement, burnout, and SHC. We
find it particularly interesting that when the scores on these factors are categorized
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

into two types of workaholics, enthusiastic and nonenthusiastic, the findings on

job stress reports and SHC follow predictions from a systematic cognitive stress
theory (CATS, Ursin & Eriksen, 2004).

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the employees and the administration of the bank
for their collaboration. We would also like to thank Nina Konglevoll, Linda
Sandal, Erling Svensen, Torbjørn Torsheim, and Magnus Odeen for technical
and statistical assistance.

Note
[1] A principal axis analysis with Kaiser Varimax rotation performed on single items of the
Spence and Robbins (1992) measures of the components of workaholism showed that no
other meaningful factors were found and that the primary factors accounted for 32% of the
variance.

References
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism
with work-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
469–477.
Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical well-being
consequences. Stress Medicine, 16, 11–16.
Burke, R. J., Burgess, Z., & Oberklaid, F. (2003). Workaholism and divorce among Australian
psychologists. Psychological Reports, 93, 91–92.
Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of Spence
and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components. Psychological Reports, 91, 1098–1104.
Cooper, C. L. (1981). The stress check. New York: Prentice Hall.
Endresen, I. M., Værnes, R., Ursin, H., & Tønder, O. (1987). Psychological stress-factors
and concentration of immunoglobulins and complement components in Norwegian nurses.
Work Stress, 1, 365–375.
Eriksen, H. R., Ihlebæk, C., & Ursin, H. (1999). A scoring system for subjective health complaints
(SHC). Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 27, 63–72.
Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. (1999). Subjective health complaints: Is coping more important than
control? Work and Stress, 13, 238–252.
 628 C. S. Andreassen et al.

Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. (2002). Sensitization and subjective health complaints. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 43, 189–196.
Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. (2004). Subjective health complaints, sensitization, and sustained
cognitive activation (stress). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56, 445–448.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement
of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299.
Ihlebæk, C., Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. (2002). Prevalence of subjective health complaints (SHC)
in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 30, 20–29.
Kanai, A., Wakabayashi, M., & Fling, S. (1996). Workaholism among employees in Japanese
corporations: An examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scales. Japanese
Psychological Research, 38, 192–203.
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. Buffalo, NY: Firefly.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

Kristenson, M., Eriksen, H. R., Sluiter, J. K., Starke, D., & Ursin, H. (2004). Psychobiological
mechanisms of socioeconomic differences in health. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1511–1522.
Levine, S., & Ursin, H. (1991). What is stress? In M. R. Brown, G. F. Koob, & C. Rivier (Eds),
Stress: Neurobiology and neuroendocrinology (pp. 1–21). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Lowman, R. L. (1993). Counselling and psychotherapy of work dysfunctions. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout – The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 397–422.
McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted
validation study of Spence and Robbins’ (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 75, 357–368.
McMillan, L. H. W., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2004). Workaholism and health: implications for
organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 509–519.
McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Workaholism: A review of theory,
research, and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 167–189). New York: Wiley.
Mosier, S. K. (1983). Workaholics: An analysis of their stress, success and priorities. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Murison, R., & Overmier, J. B. (1993). Some psychosomatic causal factors of restraint-in-water
stress ulcers. Physiology and Behaviour, 53, 577–581.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative
outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70–84.
Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk. New York: New York University Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzàlez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and
consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
 Workaholism 629

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27–41.
Siegrist, J., Klein, D., & Voigt, K. H. (1997). Linking sociological with physiological data: The
model of effort-reward imbalance at work. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 161, 112–116.
Sluiter, J. K., Frings-Dresen, M. H. W., Meijman, T. F., & van der Beek, A. J. (2000). Reactivity
and recovery from different types of work measured by catecholamines and cortisol: A
systematic overview. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 298–315.
Sluiter, J. K., van der Beek, A. J, & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (1998). Work stress and recovery
measured by urinary catecholamines and cortisol excretion in long distance coach drivers.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55, 407–413.
Sluiter, J. K., van der Beek, A. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (1999). The influence of work
characteristics on the need of recovery and experienced health: A study on coach drivers.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 01:22 05 November 2015

Ergonomics, 42, 573–583.

Sluiter, J. K., van der Beek, A. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2003). Medical staff in emergency
situations: Severity of patient status predicts stress hormone reactivity and recovery.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, 373–375.
Spence, J. T, & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary
results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
Taris, T. W, Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands:
Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Applied Psychology, 54,
37–60.
Tveito, T. H., Passchier, J., Duivenvoorden, H. J, & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). Subjective
health complaints and health related quality of life in a population of health care workers.
Psychology and Health, 19, 247–259.
Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activation theory of stress.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 567–592.

View publication stats