Abstract
Workaholism, an excessive focus on work without apparent economic reason, has been conceptualized by Spence and Robbins (1992) as comprising three dimensions; Work Involvement (WI), Enjoyment (E), and Drive (D). The corresponding measure, the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT; Spence & Robbins, 1992) is widely used in workaholism research. Cluster and factor analyses in the present study of 320 employed participants failed to confirm Spence and Robbins' three‐scale model of workaholism: only E and D were apparent (α=.85 and .75, respectively). Convergent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between E and job satisfaction (.48), between D and intrinsic job motivation (.39) and with the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality—Workaholism scale (E=.27, D=.61). Criterion validity against hours worked was weak (E=.16, D=.22, respectively). Overall, the data endorse Kanai, Wakabayashi, and Fling's (1996) elimination of the Work Involvement factor in favour of a two‐factor structure of workaholism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
