Sie sind auf Seite 1von 147

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

THE VALIDATION AND GENERALIZATION OF THE WORK ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS INVENTORY (WABI)

By MEREDITH A. SENHOLZI

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Semester Approved Summer Semester, 2005

The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Meredith A. Senholzi defended on June 20, 2005.

________________________ R. William English Professor Directing Dissertation ________________________ Lee Stepina Outside Committee Member ________________________ F. Donald Kelly Committee Member ________________________ Gary Peterson Committee Member

Approved:

Frances Prevatt, Chairperson, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to two very special people. I would like to thank my fianc, Dr. Christopher Tavani, for your love, support, and inspiration as well as your statistical consultation. Your patience and ability to help me to stay grounded is much valued. I would also like to thank my mother, Barbara Smith, for making my research possible. I consider you my research assistant, for without you, I would have no participants to study! You too have been an incredible encourager throughout my doctoral program. For these aforementioned qualities and more, I thank you both. Secondly, I would like to thank the rest of family and friends for your support during this process. Your care and concern have been uplifting to me, and I believe that you have all aided in making this endeavor possible. I would next like to show my appreciation to my Major Professor, Dr. William English, for your encouragement and belief in me throughout my time at the Florida State University. You have provided me with invaluable feedback and motivation throughout this process for which I am grateful. I would also like to thank Dr. Gary Peterson for being my second Major Professor during times of necessity. You were always there to assist me when I needed your guidance, especially relating to research design! In addition, I would like to thank my other two committee members, Dr. Donald Kelly and Dr. Lee Stepina, for all that you have done. I appreciate you serving on my committee and offering your time, knowledge, and insight into my dissertation. Furthermore, I would like to thank the Job Descriptive Index Research Group at the Bowling Green State University for allowing me to use your instrument in my research study at no cost. Likewise, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Janet Spence for granting me permission to utilize your work addiction instrument in my

iii

research. I am grateful for being given these opportunities from pioneers in your respective fields of career counseling and work addiction. Finally, I would like to thank the principals and teachers of the many elementary schools located in southern New Jersey who participated in my study. Your willingness to endure a lengthy survey is very much appreciated. This research study was partially supported by a Dissertation Grant awarded by the Office of Graduate Studies at the Florida State University.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables................................................................................................... viii Abstract ........................................................................................................... x 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Study .......................................................................... Statement of the Problem ........................................................................... Related Studies .......................................................................................... Purpose of the Study .................................................................................. Social/Professional Significance ................................................................ Research Questions.................................................................................... Assumptions .............................................................................................. Delimitations ............................................................................................. Definition of Terms ................................................................................... 1 1 3 4 5 5 6 6 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................... 9 Organization of Literature Review ............................................................. The Purpose of Work ................................................................................. Definitions of Workaholism....................................................................... Theories Behind Workaholism................................................................... Personality Research.................................................................................. Types of Workaholics ................................................................................ Type of Worker and Work Addiction......................................................... Symptoms of Workaholism........................................................................ Effects of Workaholism on the Individual .................................................. Health Status and Work Addiction ................................................. Job Satisfaction and Work Addiction.............................................. Effects of Workaholism on the Family....................................................... Adult Children of Workaholics .................................................................. Children of Workaholics ............................................................................ Effects of Workaholism on the Organization.............................................. Fostering of Workaholism by the Organization .......................................... Generalization of Student Norms to Adult Norms ...................................... The Population of Elementary School Teachers ......................................... Extracurricular Activities and Work Addiction .......................................... v 9 10 10 13 15 18 23 23 25 25 27 28 29 31 32 32 33 34 36

Self-Perception and Work Addiction.......................................................... Description of Past Instruments.................................................................. Work Addiction Risk Test .............................................................. Workaholism Scales ....................................................................... Schedule for Nonadaptive Personality Workaholism Scale ............. Other Measure of Work Addiction ................................................. Need for a New Instrument ........................................................................ Description of Current Instrument.............................................................. Limitations of Past Research on Work Addiction ....................................... Benefits of Current Study...........................................................................

36 37 37 37 38 39 39 40 40 41

3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 43 Population ................................................................................................. Participants/Sample ................................................................................... Design ....................................................................................................... Variables ................................................................................................... Instrumentation.......................................................................................... Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) .......................... Workaholism Scales ....................................................................... Job Descriptive Index (JDI)............................................................ RAND 36-Item Health Survey........................................................ Work Addiction Self-Identification ................................................ The Extracurricular Teaching & Professional Activity Survey........ Background Questionnaire ............................................................. Summary of Instrumentation...................................................................... Procedures ................................................................................................. Hypotheses ................................................................................................ Analysis of the Data................................................................................... 43 43 48 49 49 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 52 53 54

4. RESULTS ................................................................................................. 56 Hypothesis I............................................................................................... Exploratory Factor Analysis ........................................................... Replication of Factor StructureBehavioral Items on the WABI ... Replication of Factor StructureAttitudinal Items on the WABI ... Replication of the Factor Structure with the 58-item WABI............ Exploratory Factor Analysis Correlations ....................................... Confirmatory Factor Analysis ........................................................ Hypothesis II ............................................................................................. Canonical Correlation..................................................................... Hypothesis III ............................................................................................ Multiple Regression Analysis ......................................................... Hypothesis IV............................................................................................ Canonical Correlation..................................................................... Hypothesis V ............................................................................................. 56 56 57 60 62 66 67 72 72 76 76 79 79 83

vi

Multiple Regression Analysis ......................................................... Hypothesis VI............................................................................................ Discriminant Analysis .................................................................... Summary of Results Section ......................................................................

83 86 86 89

5. DISCUSSION............................................................................................ 91 Hypothesis I............................................................................................... Replic. of the Factor Struc.Behav. & Att. Items of the WABI ..... Replication of the Factor Structure with the 58-item WABI............ Additional Analysis........................................................................ Hypothesis II ............................................................................................. Hypothesis III ............................................................................................ Hypothesis IV............................................................................................ Hypothesis V ............................................................................................. Hypothesis VI............................................................................................ Limitations of the Current Study................................................................ Implication for Future Research................................................................. Implication for Practice.............................................................................. 91 92 94 95 96 99 102 105 108 110 112 114

APPENDICES................................................................................................. 117 APPENDIX A: Letter to Principals ............................................................ 117 APPENDIX B: Letter of Consent............................................................... 118 APPENDIX C: Human Subjects Committee Approval Letter..................... 121 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................... 131

vii

LIST OF TABLES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Descriptive StatisticsDemographic Variables ......................................... 45 Descriptive StatisticsWork-Related Variables ........................................ 47 Average Rating of Stressors....................................................................... 48 Factor Loadings for Behavioral Items ........................................................ 58 Principal Factors Summary of Behavioral Items......................................... 59 Factor Loadings for Attitudinal Items ........................................................ 61 Principal Factors Summary of Attitudinal Items......................................... 62 Factor Loadings for Behavioral and Attitudinal Items (58-Item WABI) ..... 63 Principal Factors Summary of Behav. and Att. Items (58-Item WABI) ...... 66 Correlations Among Factors of the WABI ................................................. 67 Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Behavioral and Attitudinal Items ............ 69 Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................... 70 Factor Correlations .................................................................................... 72 Canonical Correlation Matrix..................................................................... 73 Canonical Loadings and Standardized Canonical Coefficients ................... 74 Statistical Characteristics of Significant Canonical Roots........................... 75 Correlations Among Factors of the WABI and Health Status ..................... 76 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis on Health Status ...................... 77 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis on Health Status .. 78 Canonical Correlation Matrix..................................................................... 80 Canonical Loadings and Standardized Canonical Coefficients ................... 81 Statistical Characteristics of Significant Canonical Roots........................... 82 Corr. Among Factors of the WABI & Perf. Beyond Ones Min. Job Req ... 83
Hierarchical MR Analysis on Performance Beyond Ones Min. Job Req. ....... 84 Sum. of Hierarchical MR Analysis on Perf. Beyond Ones Min. Job Req ....... 85

viii

26. 27. 28.

Classific. Func. Coeff. and Standardized Canon. Discrim. Func. Coeff. ..... 87
Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions. ........................................... 88 Classification Results for Work Addiction .................................................... 89

ix

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to validate the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) and generalize it to a working adult population. More specifically, findings of a previous test of the instrument were sought to be replicated in a sample of 296 elementary school teachers. The results of this study will be utilized in the diagnosis and treatment of work addiction. Work addiction was examined in relation to Spence and Robbins (1992) worker traits, health, job satisfaction, self-identification of work addiction, and performance beyond ones minimum job requirements. It was hypothesized that the factor validity of work addiction and the relationship between work addiction factors would generalize to an adult working population scheme. It was also expected that a direct relationship would exist between the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) and Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales, self-perception of work addiction, and performance beyond ones minimum job requirements. Finally, it was anticipated that an inverse relationship would exist between the WABI and health status as well as the WABI and job satisfaction. Results supported all hypotheses. Findings indicated that by using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the factor structure of the WABI did replicate and generalize to a population of elementary school teachers. Canonical correlations found a direct relationship between the various scales of the WABI and Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales as well as an inverse relationship between the WABI subscales and job satisfaction. Multiple regression analyses determined that an inverse relationship exists between health status and the WABI. Likewise, a direct relationship was found to exist between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the WABI. Finally, using a discriminant analysis, self-

perception of work addiction did correspond to scores on the WABI. All results were thoroughly explored. Limitations of the study as well as implications for future research and practice were also discussed.

xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Organization of the Study This study is composed of five chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) Literature Review, (3) Methodology, (4) Results, and (5) Discussion. Chapter one focuses on the purpose of the study, research questions that were answered, and an overview of the research methodology that was employed. In addition, definitions of terms and the significance and limitations of the study are addressed. Chapter two presents a review of the related literature associated with work addiction. This includes various definitions that have been presented, characteristics of work-addicted individuals, and work addictions effects on various individuals and environments. Chapter three illustrates the process of obtaining the sample, procedures used to collect the data, and a description of the instruments as well as hypotheses. Chapter four describes the results or outcomes of the study. Lastly, chapter five concludes the study by presenting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future research and practice. Statement of the Problem Over the past several decades, the concept of work addiction has begun to evolve. Although popular media has addressed the issue, very little empirical research has been performed concerning this topic. Only as early as the late 1980s has work addiction been identified as a significant and serious type of compulsive disorder (Robinson, 1998c). In addition, the little research that was available before the late 1980s was confined to focusing on work addiction in relation to the workplace, work productivity, and career development (Robinson, 2000b). Most of this focus was in business and industry work settings in the private economic sector. 1

Perhaps workaholism may have been overlooked in past years due to the fact that working hard is often considered a very positive and admirable trait to possess (Cantarow, 1979; Machlowitz, 1980; Robinson, 2000b). For many, it is difficult to distinguish between working hard and working too hard or being a workaholic for the reason that work is often regarded as a virtue in Western European culture. Those who do not work hard are looked down upon in society or are considered lazy, and the hard workers are rewarded through praise, awards, money, promotions, and additional work assignments. This may be especially true when viewing work from an organizational standpoint since productive workers are of great value to the success of the organization, and they are viewed as essential to the organization as a whole (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). In turn, replacing successful experienced workers is viewed as an unpleasant and costly activity. Some individuals may work to the point of being considered workaholics in order to be rewarded (Peiperl & Jones, 2001). In other words, they feel as though the rewards and feelings of satisfaction derived from the work outweigh the amount of time and effort put into their work. Work recognition often is internalized as critical social and personal validation of ones worth. Similarly, some individuals may continue to display workaholic tendencies because of their dissatisfaction with the rewards rendered. They may feel like they deserve more or better rewards than they are given. In turn, they may be attempting to work even harder in order to reap the benefits that they believe that they deserve, further causing themselves to be defined as workaholics (Peiperl & Jones, 2001). During the late 1980s, work addiction, or workaholism, began to be viewed as a clinical disorder similar to that of alcoholism (Robinson, 1998c). Workaholics and alcoholics share some of the same symptoms including attempting to medicate emotional pain, possession of denial systems, reality distortions, feeling the need to control, and experiencing highs and lows. Workaholics tend to experience adrenaline highs from participating in work activities or binges as well as hangovers when they inevitably come down from the highs. The downward spiral resulting in the hangover frequently includes withdrawal, irritability, anxiety, and depression (Robinson, 1998c). Highs may also result from receiving the rewards and recognition of hard work (Keichel, 1989). This view of workaholism as an addiction is shared by many researchers (Killinger, 1991;

Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1989, 1997; Schaef & Fassel, 1988). Societal responses to the related conditions, however, are dramatically different, ranging from congratulatory validation (workaholics) to moralistic, rejecting, condemnation (alcoholics). The debate over whether or not workaholism is truly increasing in our society is an important issue. Many researchers share the belief that it is, in fact, increasing both nationally and internationally (Machlowitz, 1980; Fassel, 1990; Schor, 1991). However, it is quite possible that workaholism is now being addressed in the literature because of an increase in awareness about the topic, an increase in interest regarding the topic, an increase in concern pertaining to the topic, or a combination of these ideas (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). Related Studies The current study is based on a research study performed by Haymon (1992), who developed an instrument entitled the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). This inventory was designed to address the problems associated with this topic of interest. More specifically, no other published instruments were available at that point in time. Secondly, little empirical research was available, and much of the available research being performed was anecdotal in nature. Moreover, Haymon (1992) wished to examine the underlying characteristics of work addiction including both attitudes and behaviors. The Haymon study approach was to accomplish this in an objective manner, by developing an inventory. By creating the WABI, Haymon (1992) hoped to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of this prevalent disorder in addition to increasing awareness regarding the issue. Dimensions of work addiction included in the WABI include anxiety, obsessive-compulsiveness, mania, intolerance, and self-doubt. Coincidentally, during the same time period, two other researchers, Spence and Robbins (1992), were developing their own instrument entitled the Workaholism Scales. Spence and Robbins approached the issue of work addiction from a slightly different standpoint. The instrument was designed to classify individuals into one of six types of workers, three subtypes of workaholics and three subtypes of nonworkaholics. Spence and Robbins (1992) focused their instrument mainly on attitudes of workers as opposed

to behaviors or both. Dimension of workaholism found include high drive to work, high involvement in work, and low enjoyment in work. The current study will focus on validating and extending the utility of the instrument previously developed by Haymon (1992) over a decade ago. It is anticipated that Haymons findings will be replicated and thereby confirmed. The external validity of the WABI will be increased by norming it on a large sample of elementary school teachers who are predominantly female. After this second study, it is anticipated that the WABI instrument will be utilized to identify and treat work addicts in future clinical settings. Purpose of the Study An important research question to be addressed is, Does prior research with undergraduate male college students generalize to adult professional workers who are predominantly female? The outcome of this study is to augment the current knowledge base regarding work addiction and its correlates. The importance of the study is that it builds on prior studies to advance the development of a psychometric measure to assess the degree to which individuals possess the characteristics of work addiction. This research is an exploratory study, delving into relationships between various constructs that have not been examined as of yet. More specifically, work addiction will be looked at in relation to worker traits (Spence and Robbins, 1992), health status, job satisfaction, self-identification, and performance beyond minimum job requirements. Only after correlating factors are identified will practitioners and organizations be better able to identify and treat the problem of work addiction in individuals and in organizations. Work addiction will be studied in a population of elementary school teachers. This population was chosen for several reasons. First of all, elementary school teachers make up a group of individuals who have yet to be explored or studied in relation to work addiction. Prior research has primarily focused on individuals employed in business settings, families, and college students. Secondly, teaching is considered a high-stress occupation, and the elementary level is the most stressful for educators. Compared to middle school and high school teachers, elementary-level teachers take more work home with them, deal more with demanding parents, and purchase learning supplies for

students from their own funds. All in all, teaching is a critical occupation as it deals with the development of the minds of children. Social/Professional Significance One significant social issue of todays world is the role of work in everyday life. Work is an area of life in which virtually everyone participates, gains status, and shapes ones unique identities and self-esteems. For some persons, work becomes an addiction. It is quite significant that this type of obsessive-compulsive disorder exists in our society. Workaholism is able to impact ones physical health, mental health, quality of relationships, work performance, happiness, and job satisfaction. Not only does it affect the individual, but it also has a tremendous impact on the individuals family, social network, work climate, colleagues and customers, leisure activities, and so forth. Unfortunately, the directional impact of workaholism, both on the person and on others, is often negative. However, research in this area is rather limited. Perhaps if more research were to be performed, work addiction would be better understood by society, including employee assistance specialists. Additional research is also critical to the treatment of this disorder. In the past, professionals such as psychologists have neglected this topic, possibly due to the fact that an individual who is work addicted possesses desirable qualities. In turn, practitioners and individuals alike may not be able to recognize that their behaviors are problematic and likely to worsen over time. For example, laudable attention to high work standards may become a detriment if the worker becomes obsessed with perfectionism. A clear definition determined by researchers would be an important first step in the field of psychology. Only after a consistent definition and criterion for the diagnosis are established will researchers and practitioners be able to study and treat the phenomenon. Likewise, employers will be able to recognize work addiction and perhaps implement interventions on an organizational level. In some cases, prevention and intervention will be best aimed at individuals exhibiting work addiction. Occasionally, where work addiction is a virtual epidemic, the work organization itself as well as selected individuals, will be the best targets of prevention and intervention. Research Questions The specific research questions to be answered in the present study are as follows:

1. To what extent does the factor structure of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) replicate with elementary school teachers? 2. What is the relationship between worker traits (i.e., Involvement, Driven, and Enjoyment) and scores earned on the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI)? 3. What is the relationship between health status and scores earned on the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI)? 4. What is the relationship between job satisfaction and scores earned on the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI)? 5. What is the relationship between the extent of performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and scores earned on the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI)? 6. What is the relationship between ones self-classification according to descriptions of work addicted versus non-work addicted and scores earned on the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI)? Clarifying the typical personality profile of an individual addicted to work may be useful in developing a definition of the work addict as well as a diagnostic profile and strategies for prevention and intervention. Assumptions A number of assumptions exist regarding the nature of this study. These include the following: 1) The chosen sample is representative of a defined population. In others words, teachers are representative of working adults, and especially persons who perform professional helping roles in the public economic sector. 2) The chosen sample is a truly voluntary sample. No subtle coercion was utilized when obtaining participants. 3) Participants will complete surveys in an honest manner. 4) Work addiction is a phenomenon that can be measured and described. Delimitations A few delimitations are also apparent concerning the nature of this study. These include the following:

1) Elementary school teachers may not be representative of an adult population. 2) The study will be conducted during the spring and fall seasons, or close to the conclusion and beginning of the academic school year when stress may be higher in public schools. 3) Causation cannot be inferred by the results of the study. 4) Generalization to adult males may be delimited by a large preponderance of female elementary school teachers. Definitions The following definitions are included to provide an understanding of the basic concepts and language presented in this study. AddictionA process by which a behavior that can function both to produce pleasure and to provide escape from internal discomfort is used in a pattern characterized by (1) recurrent failure to control the behavior (powerlessness) and (2) continuation of the behavior despite significant negative consequences (unmanageability) (Goodman, 1990). Extracurricular ActivityAny activity in which the individual participates that goes above and beyond his or her essential and minimum job requirements. HealthA state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity (World Health Organization, 1946, p. 100). JobA group of similar positions in a work setting. Job SatisfactionThe feeling a worker has about his or her job or job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectations, or available alternative (Balzer, Kihm, Smith, Irwin, Bachiochi, Robie, et al., 1997, p. 10). This feeling is assumed to be positive in nature. LeisureActivities performed in a persons free time with no work or work-like components (Ragheb & Tate, 1993). Value-Added PerformancePerformance that is considered above and beyond what is minimally required by ones job. This includes activities that one is not paid to do or extraordinary efforts. WorkThe exertion of effort toward the attainment of objectives for which there is economic or social worth (Isaacson & Brown, 1997).

Work Addict/WorkaholicAn individual who is addicted to the attributes of his or her job. These two terms are assumed to be synonymous, although this study will only use the term work addict. Work Addiction/WorkaholismWhen an individual is addicted to the attributes of his or her job; a compulsive disorder that manifests itself through self imposed demands; an inability to regulate work habits; and an overindulgence in work to the exclusion of most other important life activities (Robinson, 1998a, p.7). These two terms are assumed to be synonymous, although this study will only use the term work addiction. Worker TraitsA categorization of an individual in relation to work based upon Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales. Spence and Robbins (1992) identified three traits of workers for which most individuals score high or low: Involvement, Driven, and Enjoyment. When different combinations of these three dimensions are examined, Spence and Robbins (1992) discovered six types of workers into which most individuals fit.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

Organization of Literature Review This chapter will be divided into 10 main subsections. The first subsection includes the purpose of work as well as the definitions of workaholism that have been offered in the literature. The section subsection consists of theories behind workaholism as well as personality research associated with the topic. The third area explains the various types of workaholics as presented by different researchers, how Spence and Robbins (1992) types of workers relate to workaholism, and the various symptoms of workaholism. The fourth subsection discusses the effects of work addiction on the individual and covers the topics of health status, job satisfaction, and various other effects. Next, family issues related to work addiction are addressed including the effects of work addiction on the family, adult children of workaholics, and children of workaholics. In the sixth subsection, the relationship between workaholism and the organization is explored. This includes the effects of work addiction on the organization and the fostering of work addiction by the organization. The seventh subsection includes such topics as the generalization of work addition to an adult population, how elementary school teachers relate to work addiction, the relationship between extracurricular activities and work addiction, and self-perception of work addiction. Section eight talks about past instruments pertaining to work addiction. Next, the need for a new instrument is discussed and a description of the current instrument (WABI) is offered. Finally, limitations of past research on work addiction as well as benefits of the current study are presented in the last subsection.

The Purpose of Work Harpaz and Snir (2003) offer four of the many purposes that work serves in various societies, which were acquired from the Meaning of Work (MOW) research project conducted by the International Research Team in 1987. First of all, work is one of the central life roles that individuals play. Work is a significant part of the core identity of an individual and validates ones life meaning. Second, work serves as an expressive orientation due to the fact that one participates in evaluating ones competence and whether the work tasks provide the individual with a sufficient amount of intrinsic rewards. Third, work also has an economic orientation as an individual participates in work for extrinsic rewards that finance lifes essential needs and enhance a persons quality of life. Finally, work serves the function of providing the individual with interpersonal relationships in his or her life (MOW-International Research Team, 1987). However, does work serve the same purposes for workaholics? Definitions of Workaholism Although the term workaholism, coined by Oates, has existed since 1971, no true consensus exists regarding the definition of a workaholic (Robinson, 2000b). Originally, Oates (1971) defined workaholism as addiction to work, the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work incessantly (p. 1). One common definition often utilized in current research was developed by Spence and Robbins (1992). These researchers describe a workaholic as one who is highly committed to work, or one who devotes a good deal of time to it. However, workaholism is an addiction in which the workaholic feels compelled to work. Although this compulsion to vocationally achieve may be reinforced by employers and work environments, it is not a result of external demands or pleasure derived from work as much as a result of internal pressures that cause the individual to feel a great deal of distress or guilt about not working. More specifically, Spence and Robbins (1992) conclude that workaholics possess three distinct traits in comparison to nonworkaholics. First of all, workaholics are highly involved in work. Secondly, they feel driven to work because of their inner pressures. Finally, workaholics experiences low enjoyment in working. However, these three traits stand independent of one another. In other words, a workaholic may not necessarily possess all three characteristics (Spence & Robbins, 1992). The authors developed these characteristics

10

based on the prior work of other researchers in the field of study. Consequently, a workaholic not finding some type of enjoyment in working appears to be counterintuitive. However, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) determined that problems exist with the only established academic definition of a workaholic thus far. First of all, these researchers argue that being highly committed to work and devoting a good deal of time to work are not synonymous; the former is a psychological state or attitude while the latter is behavioral action. Second, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) argue that a good deal of time is a vague statement which is not able to be objectively defined. Third, the researchers question whether all workaholics do not derive pleasure from work. Likewise, the term high commitment has been associated with job satisfaction throughout the literature. Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) subsequently proposed their own definition of workaholism. They believe workaholism involves persons who choose to spend a great deal of time in work activities, when given the option to do so, resulting in the surrendering of substantial social, family, or recreational activities. They also persistently and frequently think (obsess) about work when they are not present at work. Finally, workaholics are individuals who push beyond what is expected to meet the demands of the job or to meet basic financial needs (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). However, some researchers view workaholism as more of an unstable trait as opposed to a stable trait. For example, Machlowitz (1980) depicted workaholism as an attitude towards work communicated by both time and effort. In other words, workaholism was defined as an extreme form of involvement on the part of the individual. Machlowitz (1980) concluded that workaholism did not always lead to frustration and dissatisfaction in the individual. Instead, these negative feelings were situational, determined by particular aspects of work such as autonomy and variety as well as the level of nonwork support experienced by the individual. Similarly, Peiperl and Jones (2001) concluded that work behavior that is considered excessive is able to result in positive or negative outcomes for the worker. However, these individuals who participate in excessive work behaviors are able to be classified based on the perceived results of their excessive work, or level of reward.

11

Peiperl and Jones (2001) make a clear differentiation between the workaholic and the overworker in their research. Workaholics are those who work too much but feel that the rewards arising from their work are at least equitably distributed between themselves and their organizations that employ them (if not slightly more favorable to them) (Peiperl & Jones, 2001, p. 374). On the other hand, overworkers are defined as people who work too much (in their own terms) just as workaholics do but at the same time feel that the returns from their work are inequitably distributed in favor of the organization (Peiperl & Jones, 2001, p. 374). In this sense, workaholics choose to excessively work while the overworkers are trapped in a pattern of working that is neither sensible nor equitable (Peiperl & Jones, 2001, p. 374). Therefore, workaholism is defined by personal reasons and is not necessarily viewed with resentments. More recently, Snir and Zohar (2000) defined workaholism as the individuals steady and considerable allocation of time to the work-related activities and thoughts, which does not derive from external necessities (Harpaz & Snir, 2003). Using this proposed definition in their research, Harpaz and Snir (2003) measured workaholism by the amount of time invested in the work (total weekly work hours) while controlling for the financial needs of the investment. Taking into consideration the various definitions that have been suggested as well as the empirical research that has been performed, McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady (2001) have proposed their own definition of workaholism. These researchers define workaholism as a personal reluctance to disengage from work evidenced by the tendency to work (or to think about work) anytime and anywhere (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001, p. 71). This definition is robust and straightforward but difficult to measure objectively. McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, and Brady (2001) proposed that the prior ideas being used to define workaholism are able to be classified into three categories: dynamic, characteristic, and operational. First, workaholism can be defined in a dynamic manner as it involves evading responsibility for significant others while, at the same time, being praised by employers and coworkers (Killinger, 1991). However, characteristic definitions address the structure and magnitude of the behavior of workaholism (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). In addition, this type of definition often

12

includes a value judgment about the workaholic, which is usually negative. Finally, operational definitions specify how to generate the variable of workaholism, or provide exact behaviors that must occur to be considered workaholism (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). It is suggested that the lack of consensus on the meaning of workaholism could be a result of the fact that much of the literature is spread out over several disciplines such as counseling psychology, organizational psychology, vocational rehabilitation, health research, business, psychiatry, and so forth (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady 2001). Likewise, much research that has been performed is found in unpublished monographs, reports, doctoral dissertations, and theses (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Work addiction is able to be broadly defined as when an individual is addicted to the attributes of his or her job. When taking into consideration all of the proposed definitions in the literature, the researcher feels as though Robinson (1998a) offered a clear picture of what work addiction truly is: a compulsive disorder that manifests itself through self imposed demands; an inability to regulate work habits; and an overindulgence in work to the exclusion of most other important life activities (Robinson, 1998a, p.7). A combination of the broad definition previously discussed and Robinsons (1998a) definition will be utilized for the purpose of this study, which likens workaholism to being a specific kind of obsessive-compulsive condition. Theories Behind Workaholism Several theories have been proposed in order to explain the concept and associated behaviors of workaholism. As previously mentioned, workaholism as a type of addiction is supported by many researchers (Killinger, 1991; Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1989, 1997; Schaef & Fassel, 1988). Two models are generally used to explain addictions: the medical model and the psychological model (Eysenck, 1997). The medical model involves physiological processes where the body becomes addicted to specific chemicals, either ingested or produced by the body. In relation to workaholism, it is suggested by researchers that workaholism produces adrenaline, which is experienced as a pleasurable feeling in the body (Fassel, 1990). Empirical evidence has not been gathered to support the medical theory; it would be difficult for researchers to

13

accomplish this task because of complexity and ethical issues (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). The psychological model, on the other hand, involves a belief system that supports excessive work thoughts and behaviors because of perceived psychosocial and economic benefits, despite being associated with other disadvantages to the behavior (Eysenck, 1997). The workaholic individual thinks that he or she is not able to live without excessive work behavior in spite of the negative effects or consequences on the individual, his or her family, and so forth. It is important to point out that this model suggests that if the individual was able to acquire similar benefits from an alternate source, he or she might abandon the workaholism and instead focus his or her addiction on the new source (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). The new source could, in fact, be a positive or adaptive behavior such as parenting or grandparenting, for example. Another well-known psychological theory that has been applied to workaholism is Learning Theory (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Operant Learning Theory, as proposed by Skinner (1974), views behaviors as those that are learned through operant conditioning, or when a voluntary response comes under the control of its consequences because it earns a desired outcome (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). The workaholic engages in the work-related behaviors in order be praised by supervisors or colleagues and then continues to engage in the excessive work to continue positive benefits. In this example, the reinforcing event is a positive one, i.e., praise, although it does not necessarily have to be. For example, Cohen (1995) has proposed that workaholics may engage in excessive work in order to avoid an unpleasant home and family life. This theory suggests that workaholics only engage in excessive work to obtain benefits. Therefore, workaholism should not occur among those who are not well-paid or praised, for example, nor should it occur when an individual is satisfied with his or her family life (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). In addition, workaholism should be able to be changed or altered, or the behaviors should be able to be extinguished, through training by some type of professional. Furthermore, learning theory does not consider other factors that could affect the workaholic such as an individuals

14

childhood experiences or ones genealogy (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Personality Research The lack of consensus regarding the basic tenets of workaholism has lead to the debate over whether workaholism is a situational state or relating to a personality trait of the individual. Many researchers would agree that both situational and personality factors are significant to the comprehension of the idea of workaholism (Porter, 1996; Schneider, 1987). Nevertheless, trait theories have existed for many years and have become popular emphases in current research. As mentioned by Patrick, Curtin, and Tellegen (2002), trait conceptualizations have reemerged as a dominant force in the science of personality (p. 150). Trait theory, according to McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, and Brady (2001), views stable patterns of behavior as dispositional as opposed to cultural or environmental. In turn, according to the trait theory, workaholism would be regarded as an expression of an underlying trait that became evident in late adolescence, exhibited stability across multiple employment situations, and was exacerbated by environmental stimuli such as stress (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001, p. 82). Consequently, workaholism would develop in an individual as a product of the interaction between the trait and the environment. One particular model relating to personality includes the Trait-Specific model. According to McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, and Brady (2001), this model explains workaholism through narrow behavioral patterns and acknowledges individual variation but is only able to explain a relatively restricted range of phenomena (p. 82). An example provided by McMillan et al. (2001) is that an obsessive-compulsive personality trait may relate to specific concrete tasks such as work and chores, but may not relate to broader ideas such as ones attitudes and values. Some researchers proposing the trait-specific model view workaholism as an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (Chonko, 1983; Naughton, 1987). Clarks (1993) measure of workaholism contains items that examine obsessive-compulsive personality traits (Clark, McEwen, Collard, & Hickok, 1993). Although workaholics may derive little or no pleasure from the excessive work, they feel an uncontainable inner

15

pressure, or craving, to participate in excessive work. In turn, other significant areas of life are neglected including social relationships and leisure time. This neglect of outside activities is consistent with the definition of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition-Revised (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). In other words, persons lose balance and control of their lives because of singular pursuit of ego gratification. Additional research has suggested a link between workaholism and hypomania (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Workaholics have been described in a manner that suggests hypomanic behaviors such as being very fearful of inactivity, being intense, energetic, and driven, and possessing a tremendous zest for life (Klaft & Kliener, 1988; Machlowitz, 1980). As defined by the DSM-IV-TR, hypomania includes such features as an elevation in mood with associated symptoms including a decreased need for sleep, flights of ideas or experiences of racing thoughts, and increases in goal-directed activity including that related to work (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Generic personality models, on the other hand explain more diffuse phenomena but sacrifice individual variability in the process (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001, p. 83). Traits are seen as core components of the individual that are stable for the individual across all situations. Current research that supports a generic personality model in relation to workaholism includes a study performed by Clark, Livesley, Schroeder, and Irish (1996). It was determined by Clark et al. (1996) that workaholism is a pathological dimension of the personality that is positively correlated with compulsiveness as well as the more broad trait of conscientiousness. In addition, Ross and Krukowski (2003) found workaholism was a moderate predictor of the imposter phenomenon, or a motivational disposition in which persons who have achieved some level of success feel like fakes or imposters (p. 477). Differences between theories are quite apparent. For example, trait theory suggests that workaholism is able to be traced back to a specific time period during late adolescence when a predisposition toward workaholism was triggered by some environmental stimuli, whereas learning theory proposes that workaholism became conditioned gradually as a behavior was reinforced repeatedly (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Furthermore, trait theory would suggest that workaholism would

16

continue to occur throughout ones life as it is inherent in the individuals personality. On the other hand, learning theory states that workaholism would taper off when an individual was not involved in work, such as during the retirement phase of ones life. Similarly, learning theory would suggest that workaholism would tend to be found in specific organizations or in specific cultures because the behaviors are learned. In addition, workaholisms ability to change is heavily contrasted by the various theories. Trait theories hypothesize that workaholism is stable over the entire course of ones life whereas learning and addiction theories, especially learning theories, believe that workaholism is able to be manipulated or changed (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Moreover, the various theories contradict one another concerning the nature of effects on the workaholic. For example, addiction theories view the initial effects on the workaholic as somewhat positive due to the fact that the individual may experience pleasant physiological sensations (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). At a later point in time, however, the effects produce negative effects such as withdrawal, irritability, and cravings. Learning theory, as already discussed, would conclude that the effects on the individual are always reinforcing, such as praise or criticism, and perpetuate the workaholic behaviors. However, trait theory suggests that the individual would participate in workaholic behaviors despite whether the effects were negative or positive due to workaholisms inherent/genetic nature. Finally, in relation to health risks, the addiction model implies that workaholics experience chronic illnesses and early death, due to workaholisms debilitating effects on physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health. No conclusions are able to be drawn at this time due to the lack of longitudinal research pertaining to the topic (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). However, the current study is most in line with the obsessive-compulsive theory of work addiction, or a personality theory. The individual feels compelled to work as a result of inner pressures that he or she is experiencing. These anxieties are present despite the profession or work setting. In addition, one significant component of the WABI is obsessive-compulsiveness.

17

Types of Workaholics Consensus also has yet to be reached concerning types of workaholics. Several researchers have each determined their own opinions of varying types of workaholics. One common belief, however, among researchers is that there is not one specific type of workaholic. Instead, researchers believe that there are several types of workaholics with some overlapping and some varying characteristics. Likewise, both similarities and differences exist between the typologies of various researchers. Oates (1971) was the first to define the concept of workaholism and also the first to develop a typology of workaholics. Oates (1971) speculated that there are five contrasting types of workaholics. These are the dyed-in-the-wool, the converted, the situational, the pseudo-workaholic, and the escapists posing as workaholics types. The dyed-in-the-wool workaholics are perfectionists who take their work very seriously and place extreme demands on themselves. This type possesses the characteristics of being professional, has vigorous intolerance of incompetence, is needed by his organization to take action, is overcommitted to work, and is very talented and skilled in a specialization area. The arrested or converted type of workaholic is also considered a professional but adheres strictly to the work day of the nonprofessional. In other words, the individual only works during regular business hours and requires compensation for overtime work, in order to safeguard precious free time. The situational workaholic works out of necessity to cope with economic difficulties. Excessive work is performed for economic security and is not due to an inner psychic need or a need to achieve prestige or recognition. The pseudo-workaholics share many of the characteristics of the dyed-in-thewool workaholics; however, the purposes of their actions differ. The pseudo-workaholic is motivated by power while the dyed-in-the-wool workaholic possesses a production orientation. One additional significant difference between the two types is that the pseudo-workaholic may lack the perfectionism that the dyed-in-the-wool workaholic displays. Finally, escapists posing as workaholics are individuals who work longer hours to avoid going home to an unhappy family life. For these individuals, work serves as an escape as opposed to a compulsion to excel (Oates, 1971). Following Oates (1971) derivation of typologies, several other researchers developed their own theories concerning the various forms of workaholics. In 1981, a

18

decade after Oates, Rohrlich described 13 types of workaholics which were derived from his early psychoanalytic work. The angry, hostile work addict takes out anger and hostility through work as opposed to releasing it in more constructive manners. The ashamed work addict attempts to gain acceptance through work due to low self-esteem. To the competitive work addict, work is a game where the individual is able to gain power. The defensive work addicts excessive work is a reaction to the demands of temporary labor-intensive situations. The friendless, lonely work addict uses work to gain social acceptance and to be liked by the other employees. The guilt-ridden work addict feels as though he or she deserves to be punished, therefore engaging in excessive work-related behaviors and putting high demands on oneself. The latent homosexual work addict derives pleasure from being in a position where he or she is able to be dominated and controlled by samesex workers within a work setting. The sexually impotent or frustrated work addict, on the other hand, derives pleasure from flirtations and fantasies that occur within the work setting. Moreover, the narcissistic work addict is an individual who possesses lifelong feelings of inadequacy that can be lessened by excessive work. The obsessive work addict derives pleasure from excessive neatness, orderliness, and structure as well as from work that possesses these characteristics. In addition, the passive-dependent work addict feels the need to depend on someone else in work activities. The pre- or postpsychotic work addict uses the structure and boundaries that work provides as a means of stabilizing a chaotic lifestyle. Finally, the pseudo- or escapist work addict uses work as a means of distraction from an unpleasant personal life (Rohrlich, 1981). Naughton (1987) followed several years later with a typology based on the two dimensions of commitment and obsession-compulsion. The first type, or the job-involved workaholic, is characterized by a high commitment to work and a low degree of obsession/compulsion. Work activities are preferred over other activities for the jobinvolved workaholic. In addition, because of this combination of dimensions, the jobinvolved workaholic would most likely thrive in a demanding or challenging work situation and tend to be quite satisfied with his or her job. The compulsive workaholic, on the other hand, is defined by a high degree of commitment to work and a high degree of

19

obsession/compulsion. This individual may be classified as a work addict as much time and energy is devoted to the work but in a potentially dysfunctional manner due to ritualized patterns of thoughts and behaviors. In turn, the job performance of the individual will most likely be poor. Nonworkaholics are characterized by their low commitment to work and their low degree of obsession/compulsion. Work is considered something one must do, not something one desires to do. Other life alternatives may be valued over work. Finally, the compulsive nonworkaholic has a low degree of commitment to work and a high degree of obsession/compulsion, causing the individual to devote a great deal of time and energy to activities not related to the work environment. Fassel (1990) also conceptualized four types of workaholics. The compulsive worker feels driven to work all of the time and serves as the model for the stereotypical workaholic that is described by the popular press. The binge worker works in spurts, sometimes for days at a time as opposed to consistently like the compulsive worker. However, both types share the characteristic of compulsiveness. The closet worker attempts to hide his or her excessive work from others to avoid attention. Finally, the work anorexic also displays compulsions similar to the other defined types, but in the form of avoidance of work (Fassel, 1990). As previously discussed, Spence and Robbins (1992) completed a study which identified six varying profiles of workers. Using their definition of a workaholic as one who is highly involved in work, feels driven to work because of ones inner pressures, and who experiences low enjoyment in working, Spence and Robbins (1992) determined that all workers could be rated on the three components of Involvement, Driven, and Enjoyment. Different combinations of these three factors would result in six distinct profiles of workers. Other than the Workaholic profile previously described, Spence and Robbins (1992) determined that additional profiles included the Work Enthusiast, the Enthusiastic Workaholic, the Unengaged Worker, the Relaxed Worker, and the Disenchanted Worker. The Work Enthusiast consists of one who is above average on work Involvement and Enjoyment but below average on Driven. Enthusiastic Workaholics, on the other hand, show average levels across all three areas, thereby combing the two previous profiles. These two subtypes are also considered workaholics.

20

The fourth profile, or the Unengaged Worker, is below average on all three measures. Relaxed Workers, however, are below average on Work Involvement and Driven, but experience above average Enjoyment. Finally, the Disenchanted Worker is below average on Work Involvement and Enjoyment measures, yet is above average on Driven measures. The Unengaged Worker, Relaxed Worker, and Disenchanted Worker are considered subtypes of the non-workaholic. As a result of the determination of these six subtypes, Spence and Robbins (1992) developed an instrument, which will be discussed later, that is utilized by many researchers to study the topic of workaholism. Following a survey of the practitioner literature, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) advanced their own theory regarding the various types of workaholics. Before defining the various types, these researchers determined that there exist three elements that are common to all types of workaholics including spending a great deal of time in work activities, persistently and frequently thinking about work when not at work, and working beyond what is reasonably expected to meet the requirements of the job or to meet their own economic needs. The first type, as proposed by Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) is the compulsive-dependent workaholic. This type of workaholic displays features of both dependence on work and obsessive-compulsiveness related to work as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition-Revised (DSM-IVTR). The individual works for a longer amount of time than originally intended, recognizes that he or she is working excessively but is not able to control it or even reduce it, continues to work in spite of health and social problems, and experiences withdrawal or anxiety symptoms when not working. Perfectionist workaholics, on the other hand, appear to meet some of the criteria for the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder as defined by the DSM-IV-TR. In other words, they feel a strong need to be in control which leads to inflexibility and rigidity. They tend to be aggressive in their attempts to gain power and control. Lastly, they are preoccupied with details, rules, and lists. The third type of workaholic, or the achievement-oriented workaholic, desires upward mobility in ones position, displays achievement motivation, and demonstrates a Type A personality pattern. Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) point out that these three types of workaholics exist on a continuum and are not always mutually exclusive.

21

Most recently, Robinson (1998a, 2000b) developed a typology of workaholics from the standpoint of the relationship between their levels of work initiation and their levels of work completion. The first type of workaholic is the relentless workaholic, or one who is a high work initiator and has a high level of work completion. These individuals work constantly as well as compulsively, regardless of the time of day, the day of the week, or the day of the year. The bulimic workaholic is one who is low in work initiation and high in work completion. In other words, the individual possesses work patterns that vacillate, or binges and purge as a bulimic individual would. Attention deficit workaholics seek adrenaline rushes and are easily bored. This type of workaholic includes those who are high work initiators but have a low level of work completion. Finally, savoring workaholics are low in work initiation and low in work completion due to the fact that they are slow, deliberate, and methodical. Work is savored similarly to alcohol being relished by an alcoholic (Robinson, 2000b). A fifth type of workaholic that is able to be found in combination with any of the other previously proposed types has been identified by Robinson (1998a). The careaholic workaholic has a compulsive need to be overly responsible for others, to feel the feelings of others, and to overdo for them (Robinson, 1998a, p. 61). According to Robinson (1998a), careaholism is work addiction veiled in noble intentions (p. 61). Careaholics are attempting to help others at the expense of their own needs. They tend to feel happy when helping others due to the fact that it allows them to feel needed, to remove the focus from themselves, and to experience emotionally high feelings. These individuals may not necessarily be found in the workplace but may be found at home, in the community, in the church, or in a combination of settings and volunteer activities (Robinson, 1998a). In sum, work addiction is a robust concept that includes substantial diversity (Robinson, 1998a). It would be difficult and flawed to establish a stereotype of a work addict due to the varying types of people and settings that a work addict can be found. Work addicts consist of individuals of all genders, ages, races, and ethnicities. They are found among the educated as well as the uneducated. Workaholism is associated with such blue collar positions as construction workers and waitresses and in white collar positions such as the CEOs of companies. Workaholics do not just refer to the men, or

22

breadwinners, of the family. Instead, they are able to be stay-at-home mothers. All in all, any type of person, in any type of position can be a workaholic. Type of Worker and Work Addiction Due to the fact that Spence and Robbins (1992) have already developed a workaholism instrument based on the typology of various workers, the new instrument being examined in this study will be compared to Spence and Robbins instrument. Their measure has been empirically tested and appears to possess adequate statistical properties. It is hypothesized that the worker traits of Spence and Robbins (1992) measure will have significant relationships with the subscales of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Traits measured by the WABI have been associated with work addiction including such features as anxiety and obsessive-compulsiveness (Haymon, 1993; Harguchi, Tsuda, & Ozeki, 1991). Also, one of the basic premises of the WABI is a shared characteristic of Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholic Typedrive to work based on inner pressures. Symptoms of Workaholism Oates (1971) discovered four symptoms that were common to workaholics upon talking with children of workaholics. First of all, workaholic parents exhibited a bifocal cognition preoccupation, or always having something else on their minds. Secondly, these parents demonstrated haste, as they were always rushing. Third, the children of workaholics identified irritability as a common parental symptom. Finally, depression about work was a recognized theme in the lives of these workaholics. The children of the workaholics indicated that their parents considered work too seriously and lacked senses of humor (Oates, 1971). After years of accumulating case studies, Robinson (1989) distinguished 10 warning signs of work addiction in his counselees based on his counseling practice. Robinson (1989) concluded that workaholics are always in a rush and hyperbusy. Workaholics often feel the need to have several activities or projects occurring at once and only feel accomplished when they are involved in multiple tasks. Secondly, workaholics play the Control Game where they need to be in control of every situation and do not feel comfortable delegating tasks to others. They also feel that asking others for assistance is a sign of weakness or incompetence. The next characteristic of many

23

workaholics is that nothing is ever perfect enough for them. Workaholics tend to hold themselves, as well as others, to impossible performance standards where failure and anger towards others is inevitable. Another common characteristic determined by Robinson (1989) is that their relationships crumble in the name of work. Workaholics often sacrifice their relationships with families and friends for production or achievement. Even when a workaholic does spend time with his or her family members, he or she is often distracted as work is on the individuals mind. Moreover, workaholics produce work in binges. Workaholics impose deadlines on themselves that cause them to binge on projects as opposed to setting reasonable timelines for themselves. Next, workaholics are able to be described as restless, no-fun grumps. Workaholics are not able to relax and have fun without work being on their minds. Likewise, they are often quite irritable and critical of others. Free time is viewed as wasted time. In addition, they experience work trances where the workaholic will not remember interactions because the individual was thinking about work. This brownout as Robinson (1989) calls it, is similar to a blackout experienced by an alcoholic. Furthermore, workaholics tend to be impatient and irritable. Lack of patience for themselves or for others leads to impulsive decisions and actions that could result in disastrous consequences. Projects may reflect shoddy work, or mistakes may be made due to a lack of planning or forethought. Workaholics also are inclined to think theyre only as good as their last achievement. Workaholics define themselves through their work, which provides them with identity and validation. Therefore, when they are not participating in a project, they may feel empty, lost, and a lack of self-worth. On the other hand, when the workaholic is involved in work, he or she experiences an emotional high as a result of performance and achievement. Thus, the workaholic attempts to constantly engage oneself in work-related projects in order to sustain the riveting high and avoid the creation of negative feelings about the self. Finally, workaholics have no time for self-care. The workaholic engulfs himself or herself in work at the expense of his or her health. Workaholics, therefore, have almost no time for exercise, a nutritious diet, the proper amount of sleep, rest and relaxation, etc. In addition to the lack of healthy life habits, workaholics will many times demonstrate unhealthy habits as well such as

24

ingesting large amounts of caffeine, smoking, excessive eating, substance abuse, and so forth. Consequently, the workaholics health may be in jeopardy as these behaviors often lead to chronic medical conditions like hypertension, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and ulcers (Robinson, 1989). Psychological and behavioral symptoms exist as well. According to Robinson (1998a), behavioral signs of workaholism include temper outbursts, restlessness, insomnia, difficulty relaxing, hyperactivity, irritability, impatience, forgetfulness, difficultly concentrating, boredom, and mood swings ranging from euphoria to depression. It appears as though the physical signs that accompany workaholism are able to cause the behavioral signs and vice-versa. For example, severe headaches may cause one to experience insomnia just as insomnia may cause one to experience severe headaches. In addition, Robinson (1998a) identified twelve patterns of dysfunctional thinking in which the workaholic may participate. The main theme of these thinking patterns is rigidity that has developed from feelings of inadequacy. These thinking patterns include the following: perfectionistic thinking, all-or-nothing thinking, telescopic thinking, blurred-boundary thinking, people-pleasing thinking, pessimistic thinking, helpless thinking, self-victimizing thinking, resistance thinking, wishful thinking, serious thinking, and externalizing thinking. However, Robinson (1989) pointed out that all of these features may not be present in every workaholic. Various workaholics may have contrasting profiles containing any combination of these traits with varying degrees of severity. These characteristics are merely guidelines for individuals, families, clinicians, and employees to consider when addressing workaholism. Effects of Workaholism on the Individual Research has demonstrated that work addiction has been found to have several consequences for the individual, most often being negative. The effects most pertinent to the current study will be discussed in detail in the following sections. Health status and work addiction. Workaholism has been linked to poorer psychological, emotional, and physical well-being (Burke, 2000d; Chamberlin, 2001). Workaholics have been found to have significantly higher scores on measures of

25

depression, anxiety, and anger. Such emotional components of psychological disorders are often linked to physical problems and chronic illnesses (Haymon, 1993; Harguchi, Tsuda, & Ozeki, 1991). If one views workaholism as a type of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD), other detrimental traits are relevant. Perfectionism that interferes with the completion of tasks and projects is one such negative by-product of OCPD, according to the American Psychiatric Association (2000). According to Wittenberg and Norcross (2001), perfectionism describes a process and an attitude where the standards set are unreachable, the process is near intolerable, and the consequence of not reaching goals is the diminution of the whole person (p. 1543). Spence and Robbins (1992) found that the trait of perfectionism is significantly higher in workaholics than it is in work enthusiasts. Consequently, perfectionism has been linked to depression in many individuals (Blatt, 1995; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & OBrien, 1991; Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 1993; Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996). Likewise, perfectionism has been found to be associated with suicidal ideation (Blatt, 1995; Burns, 1980; Hewitt, Flett, & Weber, 1994; Hollender, 1965; Kittler-Adkins & Parker, 1996). In relation to the workplace, perfectionism in women has been linked to decreases in self-esteem, increases in burnout, and worsened physical symptoms when the workplace environment became increasingly stressful (Fry, 1995). As discussed earlier, workaholism involves behaviors that may lead to many detrimental health practices (Robinson, 1998a). Such behaviors include a lack of a nutritious diet, exercise, rest, and sleep, overeating, smoking, and excessive caffeine ingestion, to name a few. Long-term consequences of these behaviors include obesity, high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease, for example. However, more immediate, short-term consequences include many emotionally-connected physical symptoms: headaches, fatigue, allergies, indigestion, diarrhea, acid reflux, stomachaches, ulcers, chest pain, shortness of breath, nervous tics, and dizziness (Robinson, 1998a). It is not surprising that significant positive associations have been found between health complaints and workaholism (Fogus, 1998). Although most of the research on work addiction has been conducted in the United States, the phenomena applies across cultures. In relation to the Japanese culture,

26

excessive work behaviors and work-related stress has been linked to death in employees (Uehata, 1993). Workaholism also significantly impacted health complaints and job stress among Japanese employees (Kanai, Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996). Spence and Robbins (1992) also found that compared to other types of workers, workaholics reported more health complaints. It is suggested by these authors that the workaholics as well as other types of workers who reported elevated job stress may tend to experience more anxiety than other individuals (Robinson, 1996a; Spence and Robbins, 1992). This speculation is a result of various studies that have determined that those displaying anxiety and other neurotic symptoms report more physical symptoms than those who do not (Costa & McRae, 1987; Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt, & Poulton, 1989). As one is clearly able to see, workaholism has more serious effects than portrayed on the surface and involves considerable collateral damage to individuals. Workaholism has also been linked to self-centeredness and self-absorption as the workaholic attempts to have others cater to him or her as well as provide him or her with craved attention (Killinger, 1991). A study performed by Burke (2000a) found that workaholics scored significantly higher than work enthusiasts and enthusiastic workaholics on measures of striving against others and possessing no moral principles. Workaholics also scored higher than work enthusiasts on measures of needing to prove oneself. Furthermore, Burke (2000c) discovered that workaholics reported less satisfaction relating to family, friends, and community when compared to work enthusiasts. Likewise, he concluded that workaholics reported less family satisfaction than enthusiastic workaholics (Burke, 2000c). In sum, these findings portray workaholics as anxious, driven, competitive, selfish isolates. Job satisfaction and work addiction. Some limited research regarding job satisfaction in relation to work addiction does exist. Bonebright, Clay, and Ankenmann (2000) found that nonenthusiastic workaholics experienced significantly more work-life conflict and significantly less satisfaction and purpose in life than three of the four types of nonworkaholics. Burke (2000a) found that workaholics scored lower than work enthusiasts and enthusiastic workaholics on values that reflected work/extra-work balance. Burke (2001) also found that a negative relationship exists between feeling driven to work and career satisfaction. In other words, those who displayed more drive to

27

work as measured by the Workaholism Scales (Spence and Robbins, 1992) also experienced less career satisfaction. In addition, Spence and Robbins (1992) as well as Bonebright (2001) found that workaholics experienced higher levels of job stress than nonworkaholics. Similarly, Spence and Robbins (1992) report that persons prone to workaholism appear to have the characteristic of low enjoyment in work. In summary, job stress may influence ones satisfaction with work as well as ones psychological state and physical well-being (Burke, 1999a). Associations between work effort, health, and enjoyment are repeatedly reported. However, as McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, and Brady (2001) pointed out, it is difficult to determine whether workaholism causes stress, whether stress precipitates an underlying tendency toward workaholism, or whether stress and workaholism are linked through a third, moderating variable (p. 73). Burnout is another associated feature of workaholism as well as job satisfaction that has been touched upon in the literature. Burnout is defined as a response syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993, p. 622). Cordes and Dougherty (1993) credit this definition to the original ideas of Maslach and Jackson (1981). Early studies established that burnout has only been associated with service professions (Posig & Kickul, 2003). However, Posig and Kickuls (2003) study tested an organizational model of burnout within nonservice occupations and found support for this model in these environments as well. According to Homer (1985), one is quite susceptible to burnout if the individual is a workaholic who has a highly stressful job. Unmet goals and work volume therefore become burdening as opposed to motivating (Homer, 1985; Machlowitz, 1980). Research performed by Bonebright (2001) found that non-enthusiastic workaholics experienced significantly higher levels of burnout than non-workaholics. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, perfectionism in women has been associated with increases in burnout (Fry, 1995). Effects of Workaholism on the Family Although workaholism has been downplayed in the past, more recently it has received significant consideration as a serious disorder that affects not only the individual but also family systems (Robinson, 1998a,1998c; Robinson, 2000a). Research on workaholism has begun to expand into the family arena of inquiry after discovering that

28

its crucial addictive properties are quite similar to alcoholism. Early pioneers in the field such as Pietropinto (1986) believed that families of workaholics would unavoidably experience discord as workaholic parents view their family members as extensions of their egos. More specifically, Robinson and Post (1997) found that those individuals who were classified as being at a high risk for workaholism were significantly more likely to perceive their families as having less effective problem-solving ability, worse communication, less clearly defined family roles, fewer affective responses, less affective involvement, and lower general family functioning. Robinson and Post (1997) suggest that work addiction may originate in a dysfunctional family of origin of the individual. In turn, the individual carries these feelings of inferiority, fear of failure, and unresolved anxiety into adulthood and consequently into his or her own marriage, family formation, and social relationships. Insecurities are compounded when excessive work is used as a means of escape from forming and maintaining intimate relationships as well as close friendships (Robinson & Post, 1997). Non-empirical sources such as surveys in magazines, a poll of physicians, and case study reports have identified negative effects that workaholism has had on marriages (Robinson, 2000b). One particular poll of physicians concerning their opinions of workaholics as marital partners produced interesting results (Pietropinto, 1986). According to these physicians, excessive work is a result of the following reasons (in descending order of frequency): feelings of inferiority and fear of failure, compulsive defenses against anxiety, a need for approval, fear of intimacy, and sexual inadequacy. Marital problems associated with workaholics include higher rates of marital infidelity, less frequent sexual relations, sexual problems, dissimilar spouses, higher than normal standards for marital satisfaction, passive-aggressive tactics, and avoidance of confrontation, alcohol abuse, higher standards of achievement for children, and less leisure activities (Pietropinto, 1986). Adult Children of Workaholics Adult children of workaholics are described by Robinson (1998a) as being selfcritical and self-disparaging individuals who feel inadequate as well as incompetent due to the fact that they are not able to live up to the expectations of others. Various traits

29

identified by Robinson (1998a) include the following: conforming to the outside world as opposed to focusing on themselves, striving for the approval of others, proneness to depression anxiety, anger, and resentment, seriousness, difficulty having fun, perfectionism, and difficulty with intimate relationships. Clinical research has demonstrated that in general, adult children of workaholics tend to be resentful of the emotional unavailability of their workaholic parents (Robinson, 1996b, 1996c, 1998a). Some empirical research does exist concerning adult children of workaholics. First of all, Robinson and Kelley (1998) found that adult children of workaholics were more elevated on measures of depression and external locus of control. More specifically, adult children of workaholic fathers scored significantly higher on the anxiety measure than adult children of nonworkaholic fathers. However, no differences were found between adult children of workaholic mothers and adult children of nonworkaholic mothers. No significant differences were found between self-concepts of adult children of workaholics and adult children of nonworkaholics (Robinson & Kelley, 1998). Another empirical study in the literature compared young adult children of workaholics to young adult children of alcoholics (Carroll & Robinson, 1999). Results indicated that adult children of workaholics experienced greater depression and parentification than any other category (adult children of alcoholics, one parent being either an alcoholic or a workaholic, or neither). Parentification is a term used to describe the parenting roles that children of workaholics must play (Robinson, 1998a). Just as in alcoholic families, these children must become parents of their own parents at the expense of their own needs including attention, comfort, and guidance as they care for the needs of the parent or parental figure (Chase, 1999; Jurkovic, 1997). Likewise, Navarrette (1998) found that adult children of workaholics reported more anxiety, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, and extrinsic motivation than adult children of nonworkaholics. All in all, it appears that adult children of workaholics, like children of alcoholics, are more insecure, more neurotic, and more delayed in normative age-level development in forming sound individual identities and in establishing close, intimate relationships with peers and significant others than adult children of non-workaholics.

30

Children of Workaholics Although some research has been performed concerning adult children of workaholics, very little research has been conducted regarding young children of workaholic parents. Robinson (1998a) suggests that children of workaholics come from two ends of the spectrum in relation to organization of the family. Some children come from what is seen as the perfect family where everything appears sound from the surface. This thin impression management veneer, however, superficially masks rigid boundaries and rules, standards of perfectionism, and an overorganized lifestyle. Children in functionally posturing families are taught to stay in control, do what others tell them to do, and to not to talk about negative feelings (Robinson, 1998a). These acts of repression undoubtedly surface periodically in subsequent disruption of children or families. On the other hand, children of workaholics are also found on the other extreme, or in blatantly dysfunctional families (Robinson, 1998a). In this type of family, the system may have too loose adherence to rules or no rules at all, lack of discipline, blurred boundaries, and a disorganized lifestyle. The inconsistency and unpredictability found in this type of family breed workaholism in its children (Robinson, 1998a). However, similarities in both types of families exist (Robinson, 1998a). Conflict, either open or subtly, is normally present as is poor communication. Likewise, a lack of nurturance of the children is evident. Neither type of family separates the child from the adult world, and the child is forced to grow up before his or her time. Children of workaholics are distrustful and learn to depend almost entirely on themselves. This burden causes feelings of resentment, doubt, guilt, inadequacy, and low self-esteem (Robinson, 1998a). Consequently, the children of workaholics may feel as though they are unloved, uncared for, and unable to handle the significant burden. Often these are misconstrued delusional feelings, but still feelings that hurt and diminish children. Based on his clinical research, Robinson (1998a) determined that children of workaholics often experience parentification, a term which was discussed earlier in this chapter. As pointed out by Robinson (2000a), children of alcoholics are able to blame the alcohol for their negative feelings whereas children of workaholics have nothing tangible to blame. Likewise, these children may have been taught to maintain a good work ethic and therefore would not view workaholism in a negative fashion (Robinson, 2000a). In

31

turn, these children may become confused and even more hurt. Parentification has also been found to predict masochistic and narcissistic personality traits, but was not found to predict compulsive characteristics (Jones & Wells, 1996). In other words, self-defeating (masochistic) behaviors are outcomes of parentification. Workaholism may be viewed as a self-defeating behavior that can result in the role reversals and role strain for children and also workaholic parents. Effects of Workaholism on the Organization The effects of workaholism extend beyond the individual and the individuals family and into the larger scope of organizations. Research indicates that workaholics are not always the productive workers that they and their employers believe them to be (Billeter, 1981). When comparing 1500 individuals in varying fields, significant differences were found between workaholics and optimal performers. As explained by Robinson (1998a), workaholics hurt the company because they are addicted to the process of working, not to getting results (p. 196). Workaholics work best alone as they are unable to delegate work or work well in team atmospheres, do not enjoy the actual process of working or the product of their work, are motivated by the fear of failing or losing status, are less efficient, may become consumed with the details of the work, avoid taking risks, and are self-critical and intolerant of their own mistakes (Robinson, 1998a). Similarly, according to Harguchi, Tsuda, and Ozeki (1991), in addition to psychological factors, workaholism was found to be associated with behaviors such as absenteeism, withdrawal, low productivity, mistakes, and accidents while working, which are able to be detrimental to the organization. Moreover, Bonebright (2001) found that non-enthusiastic workaholics have lower productivity than work enthusiasts and enthusiastic workaholics. This combination, non-enthusiastic attitudes and workaholic, perfectionism-driven behaviors, is especially costly to work organizations. Fostering of Workaholism by the Organization A few researchers have agreed that the organization of the worker, in those cases where a workaholic is employed, may precipitate or maintain workaholic behaviors (Fassel, 1990; Porter, 1996; Schaef & Fassel, 1988). Burke (2000a) confirmed such a link with findings indicating that workers who reported more supportive organizational values also reported greater work enjoyment and were less driven.

32

Schaef & Fassel (1988) offer a picture of an organizational climate that evokes workaholism in its employees. As mentioned previously, because workaholism is often viewed by the organization as being a positive trait to possess, workaholism thrives within organizations across the world. It is encouraged because to the organization, hard and even excessive work benefits the organization, and possible negatives, like the workaholics lack of productivity or lack of efficiency, are denied or rationalized. Furthermore, this type of behavior is often rewarded through various incentives (Schaef & Fassel ,1988). In addition, workaholic traits in an individual are also fostered by workaholic bosses (Robinson, 1998a). Six elements are described by Schaef and Fassel (1988) that characterize an organizational climate that promotes workaholism. First of all, the mission of the organization is neglected. This is able to occur through denial, forgetfulness, or ignorance. Individuals are so preoccupied with their own work, that the overall picture is disregarded. Secondly, employees are taught to do everything in their power to keep the organization thriving, despite its toll on the individuals. Furthermore, because monetary gains show success and profit of the organization, long-term goals are often abandoned. Organizations are often driven by immediate rewards and success but may not think about the future. In addition, with the workaholic organization having no boundaries, work interferes with the personal lives of the employees as they are expected to let work spill into all areas of their lives. However, employees become dependent on the organization as a result of salary and benefits. Moreover, crisis management drives the workaholic organization. In turn, the energy and drive of the employees is kept at a heightened level so that individuals are able to respond quickly. This perpetual state of crisis is a result of the organizations lack of planning and focus on short-term goals so as to receive immediate gratification. Finally, organizations of this nature are often impersonal as employees are treated as numbers. The lack of meaningful interpersonal relationships fuels workaholism due to the fact that workaholics have difficulty working well with others (Schaef & Fassel, 1988). Generalization of Student Norms to Adult Norms Based on the theory that work addiction is a core part of ones personality as opposed to a situational occurrence, findings related to college students, as discovered by

33

Haymon (1992), should replicate in a sample of working adults. Work addict tendencies should carry with an individual despite the situation in which he or she is involved. Likewise, a vast majority of the studies discussed in this review involve adult working populations as opposed to college students. Furthermore, as Robinson (1998a) pointed out, work addicts are not only found in the corporations of America (Robinson, 1998a). Instead they are to be found across all professions and also across all ages. Little research has been performed concerning workaholism and gender differences. Customarily, research on workaholism has focused on men, perhaps due to the traditional view of men being the breadwinners of the family. However, more recently, workaholism studies have been expanded in order to include women in their samples. The factor structure of the WABI is believed to be able to be replicated in a population of both men and women. In a study performed by Burke (1999a), no differences were found between men and women regarding Spence and Robbins (1992) workaholism components. These findings were equivalent to those reported by Spence and Robbins (1992). However, men and women did differ with respect to other variables such as job stress, with women reporting a greater degree of job stress than men (Burke, 1999a). On the other hand, a more recent study performed by Harpaz and Snir (2003) found that men had a higher likelihood of being workaholics than women. This study differs from those of Burke (1999a) and Spence and Robbins (1992) due to the fact that the two previous studies used Spence and Robbinss definition of workaholism which is more of an attitudinal defintion (Harpaz & Snir, 2003). However, Harpaz and Snir (2003) used their own definition of workaholism which was developed from a behavioral base. The Population of Elementary School Teachers Elementary school teachers are unique from the private sector managers and workers who have been the focus groups of most previous studies about work addiction. All teachers are considered to be on the same level, and the same status is attached to each teacher position. A social stigma is also associated with the profession of teaching. Many individuals believe that teachers do not perform stressful work due to a multitude of reasons. Some hold this belief due to the fact that teachers do not work until the standard hour of 5:00. Most teachers also do not work during the summer months. In

34

addition, teaching may not be perceived as being as stressful because traditional office or business-like work is not involved in the profession. Finally, some individuals are under the impression that teachers utilize the same teaching materials each year and do not have to constantly update or revise their lesson plans and teaching tools. Consideration of the roles, responsibilities, and load of elementary school teachers suggests burnout and work addiction. Research indicates that teaching is a particularly stressful occupation (Cacha, 1981; Farber & Miller, 1981; Van Horn, Schaufeli, Greenglass, & Burke, 1997; Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997), and studies have been abundant in the areas of stress and burnout among teachers (Brown & Ralph, 1992; Byrne, 1994; Cooper, 1995; Friedman, 1991; Maslach & Leiter, 1997; Pretorious, 1994; Wolpin, Burke, & Greenglass, 1991). Elementary teaching carries much responsibility in our society. Teachers are molding young minds and shaping the future workers of the world. Teachers spend a full work day in their schools and take work home almost every day. Teachers frequently work with inadequate instructional resources and often pay for extra supplies themselves. Antagonistic, neglectful, and sometimes abusive parents add to the complexity and stress of elementary teaching. Parent interactions are further complicated when teachers are not supported by their principals or they only receive weak support. Research indicates that several factors contribute to burnout among teachers. Such difficulties include disciplinary problems, students misbehavior, students lack of motivation, and overcrowded classrooms (Borg & Falzon, 1989; Greenglass, Burke, & Konarski, 1997; Hodge, Jopp, & Taylor, 1994; Smith & Bourke, 1992). Problems in the school environment that contribute to burnout include poor organization of schools, lack of support (administrative and technical), conflict among staff members, high workload, and time pressures (Greenglass et al., 1997; Smith & Bourke, 1992; Travers & Cooper, 1993). It was also found that burnout was often a result of lack of social recognition, large class sizes, a lack of available resources, isolation, fear of violence in the school, a lack of classroom control, ambiguity of roles, and limited professional opportunities (Lowenstein, 1991; Travers & Cooper, 1996). Finally, job satisfaction of teachers was found to be significantly lower than that of other occupations such as doctors and nurses

35

and was predicted by management pressures and school structure (Travers & Cooper, 1993). Extracurricular Activities and Work Addiction Little research exists pertaining to the topic of the relationship between extracurricular activities and work addiction, which is surprising in that most schools expect teachers to do extra work in an array of extracurricular activities (e.g., student supervision, activity advisement, committee work, fund raising). Based on the prior research discussed in this section, one could speculate that work addicts would participate in more activities that go above and beyond the minimum job requirements than nonwork addicts. In concurrence with the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder theory, work addicts would feel compelled to do extra work and therefore would not stop at the minimum. As mentioned previously, Spence and Robbins (1992) found that the trait of perfectionism is significantly higher in workaholics than it is in work enthusiasts, perhaps causing work addicts to be very exacting and demanding in their performances. During the preliminary development of their instrument, Mudrack and Naughton (2001) found evidence that work addicts tend to perform more non-required work than those who are not considered work addicts. It was also found in a poll performed by a physician that workaholics participated in less leisure activities than nonworkaholics (Pietropinto, 1986). Self-Perception and Work Addiction Little known research exists relating to the ability of work addicts to self-identify as driven workers. The only known study at this time is that of Haymon (1992). Haymon (1992) found that 88.8% of participants were accurate in perceiving themselves not to be workaholic, and 83.3% accuracy for participants who perceived themselves to be workaholic. The overall accuracy rate was 87.5% based on participants self-perceptions. In other words, participants were correctly able to self-identify themselves as being workaholics or nonworkaholics 87.5% of the time. Because of the lack of research in existence pertaining to self-perception, the present study will attempt to address this issue. It is hypothesized that participants will be able to correctly identify themselves as work addicts or non-work addicts. If it is discovered that work addicts are not adept at self-identifying, clinicians may need to play special attention to this problem.

36

Description of Past Instruments A few instruments have been developed in past years that are quite important to discuss. Interestingly enough, four of the five instruments were developed at approximately the same time, including Haymons (1992) work. Each measure is unique in its own way and will be thoroughly reviewed in the following subsections. Work Addiction Risk Test (1989). The Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) was developed by Robinson in 1989, although this research team performed several studies of reliability and validity well after the instruments inception. The WART is a 25-item inventory containing Likert-type items. This instrument tends to be based on Type A behaviors, which make reference to life in general as opposed to work-specific behaviors (McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). In order to test the statistical properties of the instrument, Robinson and various colleagues surveyed differing populations, mainly comprised of college students or members of the national organization of Workaholics Anonymous. It would be quite beneficial for these researchers to attempt to replicate their findings on samples of employees. Workaholism Scales (1992). One more recent and widely used instrument that has been developed is the Workaholism Scales (Spence and Robbins, 1992). As mentioned previously, Spence and Robbins (1992) define a work addict as one who is highly committed to work, devoting a great deal of time to it. The work addict also has a high drive to work because of inner pressures and low enjoyment in work. Spence and Robbins (1992) developed the Workaholism Scales based on this criteria. The result is three scales covering work involvement, driveness, and work enjoyment. Spence and Robbins (1992) began by writing at least eight items for each scale. The items were then administered to male and female college students enrolled in introductory psychology classes at the University of Texas at Austin. Based on statistical analyses employed, some items were revised or dropped from the item pool. After these changes were made, the Workaholism Scales were administered to a new sample of male and female college students. The second administration resulted in 25 items of sound psychometric properties. Spence and Robbins (1992) next administered the instrument to a population of employed individuals, including 800 social workers holding academic positions, which resulted in a final sample of 291 male and female participants. Results indicated that most

37

individuals are able to be categorized as one of six types of workers including Work Enthusiasts, Workaholics, Enthusiastic Workaholics, Relaxed Workers, Disenchanted Workers, and Unengaged Workers. The former three are considered subtypes of workaholics while the latter three are considered subtypes of nonworkaholics. As predicted, the profile of the Workaholic as defined by Spence and Robbins (1992) was evident in the study. Kanai, Wakabayashi, and Fling (1996) created a Japanese version of the Workaholism Scales using the back-translation method. Responses of 1,072 full-time employees of private companies were examined. These researchers determined that two factors of workaholism existed in the Japanese cultureEnjoyment of work and Driven to work. The results differed from the original Workaholism Scales in the fact that Work Involvement was not derived from the factor analysis. Kanai et al. attribute this finding to the fact that the Japanese participants may not have made a clear distinction between work involvement and job involvement. Furthermore, a moderate correlation was found between the Enjoyment and Driven scales (r=.32). McMillan, Brady, ODriscoll, and Marsh (2002) found similar results when testing the Workaholism Scales on a sample of 320 individual that were representative of the census of workers in New Zealand. Factor analysis did not produce the factor of Work Involvement but did derive the Enjoyment and Driven factors. McMillan, Brady, ODriscoll, and Marsh (2002) point out that the statistical procedure employed by Spence and Robbins (1992), or Wards cluster analysis, should have been performed on items instead of people, thereby ensuring structural validity before creating profiles. Instead, Spence and Robbins (1992) tested the profiles before statistically validating the various scales on which those very same profiles were based. Nevertheless, other researchers have replicated the factors that Spence and Robbins (1992) derived in their research (Burke, 1999b; Burke, Richardsen, & Martinussen, 2002). Schedule for Nonadaptive Personality Workaholism Scale (1993). The Schedule for Nonadaptive Personality Workaholism Scale (SNAP-Work) (Clark, 1993) is an 18item inventory that focuses on personality traits associated with workaholism. The instrument is actually a subscale of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP), an inventory designed to measure various components of ones

38

personality. However, the SNAP-Work is able to be utilized on its own as a measure of workaholism. This instrument has been associated with features of ObsessiveCompulsive Personality Disorder, and has been tested on various populations such as students and employees. The SNAP shows evidence of internal consistency, with median alpha reliabilities ranging from .79 to .91 (Clark, Livesley, Schroeder, and Irish, 1996). Other Measure of Work Addiction. More recently, Mudrack and Naughton (2001) performed some preliminary empirical testing of two new unnamed scales relating to workaholism. One scale focused on employee tendencies to perform work that is not required, while the second scale addressed tendencies of the employee to attempt to control the work of others. These scales focused on behavioral patterns as opposed to attitudes of workaholics. According to Mudrack and Naughton (2001), these scales are consistent with conceptual definitions as well as anecdotal findings relating to workaholism. In this preliminary study, the scales were found to have sound reliability and validity. Coefficient alphas for the scales were .74 for Non-Required Work and .82 for Control of Others. Scores on the two scales correlated moderately (r=.25), thereby indicating no multicollinearity. In other words, the two scales do not measure the same constructs. This finding was further supported by a confirmatory factor analysis which produced similar results. Need for a New Instrument Several reasons support further validation of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). First of all, many of the previously established instruments were developed several years ago when research on the topic was not as abundant. A majority of the work addiction studies in the entire history of the field were conducted in the 1990s and 2000s. Researchers such as Spence and Robbins and Robinson did not have the benefit of this past decades findings when creating their instruments. Second, the instruments address the outward behaviors or attitudes of the work addict, but not both. They also do not address the internal characteristics of the individual. For example, the Workaholism Scales (Spence and Robbins, 1992) identifies the type of worker an individual is in contrast to the additional behaviors and feelings that accompany the attitudes that are associated with a particular type of worker. Although identifying attitudess of work addicts is very important, deeper personality traits may need to be

39

discovered in order to aid in diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Third, the comprehensive assessment in this current research will allow for possible reconciliation of inconsistent findings that exist in relation to work addiction instruments. Fourth, the current research emphasizes work addiction tendencies of university-educated and statecertified teaching professionals. This study will expand knowledge about work addiction among professionals who are mostly women. Description of Current Instrument The Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) was developed in 1992 by Sandra Haymon in fulfillment of her doctoral dissertation requirement. This instrument was one of the first of its kind due to the fact that some of the more widely used instruments such as Spence and Robbins (1992) instrument, or the Workaholism Scales, would be published that same year. Likewise, Robinsons (1998) instrument, the Work Addiction Risk Test, would not be published until 1998. In order to create her instrument, Haymon reviewed the sparse literature that was available at that time to compile a list of shared attitudes and behaviors of work addicts. This list was then used to develop a set of questions pertaining to these characteristics; this process resulted in a total of 146 items. Next Haymon discarded all items that were measured by other instruments utilized in her study which resulted in an initial pool of 92 items. The remaining items were then evaluated by Haymon to ensure that all items were stated in observable and behavioral terms. After administration of the survey to 51 male students enrolled in a general psychology course, Haymon analyzed the resulting data. In turn, 20 items were discarded due to the fact that they did not differentiate between workaholics and nonworkaholics. The resulting five scales included the following: Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Intolerance, and Self-doubt. Limitations of Past Research on Workaholism In examining past research regarding workaholism, many limitations are evident. First of all, as mentioned previously, a clear consensus on the meaning of workaholism as well as the types of workaholics has not been established. Although it is suggested that workaholism is linked to several theories, no one theory has been ascertained as the defining basis of workaholism. Without an agreed upon definition and theory base, it is difficult to be entirely confident in the findings associated with workaholism.

40

More specifically, there appears to exist a lack of research regarding gender differences in workaholism. This is especially important as more and more females enter the full-time workforce each year. Similarly, studies do not explore the racial differences among workaholics as well as differences in geographic regions of the United States or even internationally. All in all, many of the samples utilized in workaholism studies are quite homongenous. Much of the research performed does not address what causes workaholism. Instead, researchers have focused on the results of workaholism. In addition, in the sparse literature that is available, the possibility of bias does exist due to the fact that only a few researchers perform a majority of the studies. Likewise, many of the studies relied on the same instruments due to the fact that only a few measures of workaholism actually exist. Many of the studies conducted used self-selection measures, or surveys. Therefore, samples may have only consisted of those individuals who took the time to participate and may not have included those individuals who were too busy to participate, which may have been the more severe workaholics. Lastly, some previous studies, including that of Haymon (1993), Robinson (1989), and Spence and Robbins (1992) have normed their instruments on convenient samples of undergraduate college students who are very young adults with virtually no full-time career-oriented work experience. Consequently, without a solid and stable foundation of the understanding of the topic, it is quite difficult to manage and treat. How is one able to treat the workaholic is one is uncertain whether it is associated with an obsessive-compulsive personality trait or an addiction or maybe even a combination? Moreover, how is one able to treat the workaholic if one is unclear whether workaholism is a stable trait, a situational display, or both? Furthermore, do all workaholics need treatment if some are found to be satisfied with their work and their lives? At this point in time, the gaps in the literature are large and are in need of addressing. Benefits of the Current Study The current study seeks to address the limitations of past studies in many ways. First of all, this study will contribute to the general knowledge of the topic of work addiction as well to the field of psychology. The study specifically addresses the problem of a lack of a clear definition for work addiction as well as a lack of diagnostic criteria.

41

These aspects of the study may aid in the treatment of the disorder. Theory is also addressed by this research, as the researcher is examining the underlying traits and characteristics of the work addict. The population utilized adds much to the research in this field. The study utilizes a population that has yet to be examined. Likewise, the particular sample is a diverse group of experienced workers, versus college students, including both males and females from various school districts throughout southern New Jersey. In addition, the study attempts to extend the validation of a new instrument to be used in the identification of work addicts. Furthermore, because the author of this study is a new researcher in the field, the possible bias that may exist regarding work addiction due to the fact that a few researchers have conducted a majority of the studies will be addressed. Finally, this study examines relationships between work addiction and issues such as self-identification, general health, and extracurricular activities which have yet to be explored in past research.

42

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the process by which each variable was measured in order to address the previously established research questions. Each variable was specifically measured using an objective instrument. In sum, the following sections are included in this chapter: Population, Participants/Sample, Design, Variables, Instrumentation, Summary of Instrumentation, Procedures, Hypotheses, and Analysis of the Data. Population The target population for this research was employed persons in the public school system in a suburban area of the Northeastern region of the United States. The population of interest was elementary school teachers, employed across various grade levels, socioeconomic levels of school, and specialties (e.g., mathematics versus reading). Participants/Sample Three hundred five elementary school teachers participated in the current study. The final sample size for data analysis included 296 participants because nine surveys were rendered unusable due to their incompleteness. These employees were employed by the participating school districts for a minimum of three months. All participants were employed in the Philadelphia region (suburban) of the United States, although school districts are located in New Jersey. Participants were obtained from six different school districts. The sample size of approximately 300 teachers was sufficiently large to justify the number of tests of the hypothesis (6). Schools were chosen based on location of district, socioeconomic composition, and familiarity with school administrators. This sample would be considered a criterion sample as well as a volunteer sample. The criterion factors were that participants were certified to teach in elementary schools, had a minimum of three months of contract, were paid, were full-time employees, and had no administrative role in the school system. The participants were also volunteers

43

who chose to give free time to the study without any administrative coercion. All employed teachers who met the criterion were invited to participate, and the sample consisted of those teachers who volunteered from this population. Demographic information for the current sample is presented in Table 1. There were 40 (13.5%) males and 256 (86.5%) females that comprised the sample. Racially/ethnically the participants were mostly Caucasian (267 or 90.2%). The remaining 9.8% included 20 (6.8%)African American, six (2.0%) Hispanic, five (1.0%) Other, and zero (0%) Asian individuals. With respect to age, there were 44 individuals (14.9%) aged 21 to 30, 79 individuals (26.7%) aged 31 to 40, 77 individuals (26.0%) aged 41 to 50, 87 individuals (29.4%) aged 51 to 60, and nine individuals (3.0%) over the age of 60. Years of teaching experience, and age-related demographic, is reported as follows: 11 (3.7%) had zero to one year of teaching experience, 54 (18.2%) had two to five years of teaching experience, 57 (19.3%) had six to 10 years of teaching experience, 83 (28.0%) had 11 to 20 years of teaching experience, and 91 (30.7%) had more than 20 years of teaching experience. Participants identified themselves in reference to marital status in the following manner: 44 (14.9%) single, 209 (70.6%) married, 16 (5.4%) significant other but unmarried, 26 (8.8%) separated/divorced, and one (0.3%) widowed. In terms of number of children, 99 (33.4%) participants reported having no children, 55 (18.6%) participants reported having children not residing with them, and 142 (48.0%) participants reported having children who do reside with them. In terms of miles of commute, most participants lived near their schools. Ninetyone individuals (30.7%) reported commuting zero to five miles, 67 (22.6%) reported traveling six to 10 miles, 73 (24.7%) commuted 11 to 20 miles, 27 (9.1%) reported traveling 21 to 30 miles, and 38 (12.8%) reported commuting greater than 30 miles.

44

Table 1. Descriptive StatisticsDemographic Variables.


Variable Number of Participants 40 256 267 20 0 6 5 44 79 77 87 9 11 54 57 83 91 44 209 16 26 1 99 55 142 91 67 73 27 38 Percentage of Participants 13.5% 86.5% 90.2% 6.8% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 14.9% 26.7% 26.0% 29.4% 3.0% 3.7% 18.2% 19.3% 28.0% 30.7% 14.9% 70.6% 5.4% 8.8% 0.3% 33.4% 18.6% 48.0% 30.7% 22.6% 24.7% 9.1% 12.8%

Gender
Male Female

Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian African American Asian Hispanic Other

Age
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60

Years of Teaching
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 >20

Marital Status
Single Married Significant Other, Not Married Separated/Divorced Widowed

Children
No Children Children, Not Residing With You Children, Residing With You

Miles of Commute
0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 >30

With respect to lifestyle, participants were hard-working and had limited leisure time. In terms of the total number of hours per week devoted solely to their elementary

45

teaching positions, 47 participants (15.9%) reported devoting 40 to 45 hours, 100 participants (33.8%) reported devoting 46 to 50 hours, 108 participants (36.5%) reported devoting 51 to 60 hours, 28 participants (9.5%) reported devoting 61 to 70 hours, and 13 participants (4.4%) reported devoting over 70 hours per week to teaching. Participants provided the following information regarding the number of hours per week that they spend in a second job away from their elementary teaching positions: 220 (74.3%) spend zero hours, 41 (13.9%) spend one to five hours, 19 (6.4%) spend six to 10 hours, eight (2.7%) spend 11 to 20 hours, and eight (2.7%) spend over 20 hours per week. Conversely, in relation to leisure time, a sizeable majority (83.4%) of the elementary teachers only spent about one day per week involved in leisure activities. Five participants (1.7%), indicated spending zero hours per week, 117 participants (39.5%) indicated spending one to five hours per week, 125 participants (42.2%) indicated spending six to 10 hours per week, 41 participants (13.9%) indicated spending 11 to 20 hours per week, and eight participants (2.7%) indicated spending over 20 hours per week. Approximately the same sizeable majority of teachers (86.5%) took few absences per year. Specifically, 130 participants (43.9%) reported zero to two absent days, 126 teachers (42.6%) reported three to five absent days, 39 participants (13.2%) reported six to 10 days, one participant (0.3%) reported 11 to 15 days, and zero participants (0.0%) reported 16 to 20 days of absences. Participants were also asked if they see themselves advancing to become administrators. Most teachers (234 or 79.1%) stated that they did not see themselves advancing to become an administrator. Finally, approximately half of the teachers received special recognitions or awards for teaching or professional accomplishments in the last five years. Specifically, 125 participants (42.2%) received one to two awards, 15 participants (5.1%) received three to four awards, five teachers (1.7%) received five to six awards, and three participants (1.0%) received seven or more awards.

46

Table 2. Descriptive StatisticsWork-Related Variables.


Variable Number of Participants 47 100 108 28 13 220 41 19 8 8 5 117 125 41 8 130 126 39 1 0 62 234 148 125 15 5 3 Percentage of Participants 15.9% 33.8% 36.5% 9.5% 4.4% 74.3% 13.9% 6.4% 2.7% 2.7% 1.7% 39.5% 42.4% 13.9% 2.7% 43.9% 42.6% 13.2% 0.3% 0.0% 20.9% 79.1% 50.0% 42.2% 5.1% 1.7% 1.0%

Total Number of Hours Per Week 40-45 46-50 51-60 61-70 >70 Number of Hours in a 2nd Job 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 >20 Leisure Time 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 >20 Number of Absences 0-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Advancement to Administration Yes No Special Recognition/Awards 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or >

Participants were also asked to rate a number of stressors on a scale from one to five, with one being not a stressor at all, two representing a very small stressor, three indicating a small stressor, four suggesting a moderate stressor, and five being a high stressor. The average of the 12 stressors was 3.09, with the highest stressors reflecting performance in key teaching functions. To illustrate, school safety received an average

47

rating of 2.34. Classroom achievement received an average rating of 3.86, parental relations rated as an average of 3.24, classroom discipline averaged 3.12, and supervisor expectations were rated as a 3.18. Relationships with colleagues received an average rating of 2.15. In addition, paperworks average score was 3.63. Moreover, individuals considered the stressor of parental complaints to be rated as an average score of 2.89. Administrative support received an average rating of 2.56. Furthermore, an average rating of 2.64 was given to the availability of resources for supplies and student enrichment. Finally, participants reported an average rating of 3.79 for the stressor of not having enough time to do what is expected of them, and the stressor of balancing ones home/family life with work received an average score of 3.69.

Table 3. Average Rating of Stressors.


Stressor Average Rating

Classroom Achievement Not Having Enough Time Balance of Home/Family & Work Paperwork Parental Relations Supervisor Expectations Classroom Discipline Parental Complaints Availability of Resources Administrative Support School Safety Relationships with Colleagues

3.86 3.79 3.69 3.63 3.24 3.18 3.12 2.89 2.64 2.56 2.34 2.15

Design A co-relational design was used in this study because the goal was to determine what the relationship is between individual characteristics and work addict tendencies. One purpose of this study was to build a theory about work addiction by better understanding the constructs, what they consist of, and how they relate to other 48

constructs (Smith & Glass, 1987). In addition, this study may allow the researcher to predict one variable from the other. For example, in the future, researchers and practitioners may be able to predict work addiction tendencies based on the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Variables The variables of interest in this study were work addiction, worker traits, health status, job satisfaction, self-identification of work addiction, and performance beyond the minimum job requirements. Work addiction was measured by the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI), while worker traits were measured by the Workaholism Scales (Spence and Robbins, 1992). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey (Version 1.0) was employed to measure health status. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Balzer et al., 1997) was utilized to assess overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with work, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with co-workers. Self-identification of work addiction was assessed by asking the participants to read a description of a work addicted individual and a description of a non-work addicted individual, and identify which description most closely resembles them. Finally, performance beyond the minimum job requirements was measured by an inventory of extracurricular activities. Instrumentation Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). The Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) is a 72item inventory designed to identify work-addicted individuals in relation to various behaviors and attitudes. Five scales comprise this measure including Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Intolerance, and Selfdoubt. Chronbach alphas for the various scales range from .61 to .83, with a median coefficient of .71. Administration time is estimated to be 10 to 15 minutes. Workaholism Scales. The Workaholism Scales is an instrument designed to classify individuals into one of six types of workers including Workaholics, Enthusiastic Workaholics, Work Enthusiasts, Relaxed Workers, Unengaged Workers, and Disenchanted Workers. This 25-item inventory is comprised of the three subscales of Driven, Work Involvement, and Enjoyment of Work. The six types of workers vary by differing scores on each of the three scales. For example, Workaholics score high on the Driven and Work Involvement scales and low on the Enjoyment of Work scale as

49

opposed to Work Enthusiasts who scores high on the Work Involvement and Work Enjoyment scales but low on the Driven scale. Each item consists of a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Reported coefficient alphas across the three scales range from .67 to .86 (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Administration time is estimated to be approximately 10 minutes. Job Descriptive Index. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) assesses job satisfaction and includes five distinct factors including Work on Present Job, Present Pay, Opportunities for Promotion, Supervision, and Coworkers. The Job in General scale, an inventory embedded in the JDI, measures overall, global satisfaction with ones job. The instrument intends to measure job satisfaction from a multitude of perspectives due to the fact that the construct is quite complex and multifaceted. Nevertheless, the various factors are interrelated, with correlations between satisfaction or dissatisfaction in multiple areas; however, multicollinearity is not an issue as inter-scale correlations range from .25 to .45. The instrument developers viewpoint is that job satisfaction should be measured by comparing the perceptions of what is fair and what actually occurs on the job. Each subscale contains either nine or 18 items, with an overall total of 90 items. Participants choose either Yes, No, or ? for each item pertaining to job satisfaction which is presented in the form of an adjective checklist. Internal consistencies appear to be quite sound, ranging from .86 to .91 In addition, the reliability coefficient of the Job in General Scale is .92. Administration time is found to be approximately 10 minutes. RAND 36-Item Health Survey (Version 1.0). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey (Version 1.0) is a 36-item questionnaire designed to address various issues relating to health. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey contains eight subscales including Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, and Mental Health, which each consist of differing amounts of questions. Each question includes a varying number of possible responses, ranging from two to six. One particular feature of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey is that it is considered a generic measure; in other words, it is able to be utilized with varying populations, ages, or types of illnesses. It also is able to serve several purposes including screening, comparing of samples and populations, and measuring the effects of various

50

treatments. Coefficient alphas for the various scales range from .78 to .93. Administration time of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey is approximately five minutes. Work Addiction Self-Identification. The Work Addiction Self-Identification is a one-item survey designed to discriminate work addicted individuals from those who are not work addicted. Participants are asked to read a description of a work addicted individual and a description of a non-work addicted individual. A work addicted individual is described as one who usually spends more time working than relaxing or socializing and also finds it difficult to relax; in turn, the individual feels compelled to stay busy (Haymon, 1992). On the other hand, a non-work addict is described as one who spends as much time relaxing or socializing as he or she does working. The individual finds it easy to relax and does not feel the need to keep busy most of the time. After reading both vignette descriptions, participants are then asked to choose the description that best describes their particular styles of work. This instrument was developed by Haymon (1992) during the completion of her dissertation. Descriptions of the work addict and non-work addict were created based on reports of attributes found in the literature. The instrument was then confirmed by the results of her study. Administration time is expected to be approximately 2 minutes. The Extracurricular Teaching and Professional Activity Survey. The Extracurricular Teaching and Professional Activity Survey is a 23-item survey designed to measure performance beyond the minimum job requirements. This instrument includes a four-point Likert scale ranging from one to four, for which participants endorse Never, Rarely, Sometimes, or Often in relation to various activities in which they were involved during the past academic year. This instrument was developed by the researcher and two consultants. The questionnaire was subsequently piloted by administering it to one elementary school principal and one assistant principal for their reactions and input. One of the consultant experts is from the Philadelphia area where the research is being conducted while the other expert is from the area where the researchers doctoral program is located, or northwestern Florida. After their reviews of the instrument, it underwent further development and revisions, which resulted in a second draft. The Cronbachs alpha was

51

.86 for this instrument. Administration time is estimated to be approximately five minutes. Background Questionnaire. The Background Questionnaire is a 25-item survey designed to measure traditional demographic data as well as stressors experienced by elementary school teachers. Stressors are measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Not a Stressor to High Stressor. The information gathered from the use of this instrument will be utilized for further exploratory information. Administration time is approximately five minutes. Summary of Instrumentation In sum, research participants were asked to take seven related instruments, including one background questionnaire. The overall estimated time for instrument completion was 45 minutes. All time estimates were determined by the researcher by performing a mock administration with a colleague. Procedures A letter was sent to each administrator in order to describe the purpose and the components of the survey as well as to formally ask permission to utilize their schools (Appendix A). After receiving a confirmatory response from each administrator, the researcher visited each school on a particular day in order to describe the research study and to recruit participants. Potential participants were approached by the researcher during one specified time period of their work day. A brief introduction pertaining to the study was provided, and participants were given letters of consent to read (Appendix B). Potential participants were also informed that there would be no penalty or prejudice for returning unused inventories, and each participant was able to discontinue his or her participation at any point during the study. Minimal risk was associated with participation in this study; individuals may have experienced some anxiety when thinking about their personalities, health, job satisfaction, or work-related feelings and behaviors. However, the researcher was available throughout the duration of the administration in order to address these concerns. Questions were addressed individually for the privacy of the participant if the participant made such a request; however, participants were free to ask any questions or voice any concerns in the group setting if they so desired. Return of the questionnaires was

52

considered consent of the participant. The researcher had been reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the Florida State University (see Appendix C). Following this introductory step, teachers choosing to be involved in the study were given a background questionnaire, the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory, the Workaholism Scales, the Job Descriptive Index, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, the Work Addiction Self-Identification, and The Extracurricular Teaching and Professional Activity Survey and asked to complete them during their faculty meeting or class preparation period. Individuals were asked to complete the work addiction measures last so that considering addictive habits (work addictions) did not skew the responses to the other inventory questions. These inventories were numbered for matching purposes. However, no identifying data was included in the study. Likewise, principals were not allowed to view the responses of their teachers. In addition, the researcher was available throughout the time period when participants were completing their inventories in order to answer any questions or address any concerns that they may have had. The researcher also provided the participants with her contact information in order to address any questions or concerns that may have presented themselves following the administration of the inventories. The profile of the researcher was as follows. She was a 26-year-old female with various experience in counseling and test administration. The researcher was in her third year of doctoral studies, majoring in Counseling Psychology. She was knowledgeable about the elementary school environment as her parents are school administrators at the elementary level. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were able to be formulated: Hypothesis I. The factor validity of work addiction and the relationship between work addiction factors will generalize to an adult working population scheme. Hypothesis II. A direct relationship will exist between Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Hypothesis III. An inverse relationship will exist between health status and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI).

53

Hypothesis IV. An inverse relationship will exist between job satisfaction and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Hypothesis V. A direct relationship will exist between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Hypothesis VI. Self-perception of work addiction will correspond with the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Analysis of the Data First of all, when analyzing the data, the means and standard deviations of the various measures were reported. Secondly, a correlation matrix presenting a collection of the relationships between pairs of variables, or bivariate correlations, was provided to the reader. Type I error was controlled for by setting the alpha level at .05 or .01. The researcher controlled for Type II error by ensuring that the sample size was large enough for the measures being examined. Effect size was also examined in order to determine the practical significance of the results. Hypothesis I. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in order to determine if factors identified in a previous study were able to be replicated. In order to perform this procedure, the researcher determined the dimensionality of the factor model and described the adequacy of fit of the resulting factor model to the data. Then, the researcher estimated the initial factor model and labeled factors. A rotation of the initial model (i.e., varimax) attempted to improve the interpretation of these factors or to identify alternative interpretations. Internal consistency coefficients for each of the WABI scales were determined in order to evaluate the consistency of the measure. In addition, a correlation matrix was created between the derived factors. Hypothesis II. In order to test the second hypothesis, or to examine the relationship between Spence and Robbins (1992) worker traits and the various scales of the WABI, a canonical correlation was conducted. Hypothesis III. To perform the test of the third hypothesis, a multiple regression analysis was utilized to determine if significant relationships existed between teachers health statuses and the various WABI scales.

54

Hypothesis IV. To test the fourth hypothesis, which examines multiple areas of job satisfaction and the various scales of the WABI, a canonical correlation was performed. Hypothesis V. To perform the test of the fifth hypothesis, which compares ones extracurricular activities to WABI scores, a multiple regression analysis was utilized to determine if significant relationships existed between teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements and the various WABI scales. Hypothesis VI. Finally, a discriminant analysis was conducted in order to differentiate those who believed themselves to be work addicted individuals from those who did not believe themselves to be work addicted individuals. This procedure identified correct classification of the individual by the WABI as well as by ones own beliefs about himself or herself, or self-perceptions.

55

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to validate the factor structure of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) as well as to replicate this structure using a population of elementary school teachers who are currently employed. The researcher also attempted to empirically examine the relationships between the construct of work addiction as measured by the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) and the constructs of health status, job satisfaction, performance beyond ones minimum job requirements, ones self-perception of work addiction, and work addiction characteristics as measured by the Workaholism Scales (Spence and Robbins, 1992). The results of each research question are explored in the remaining sections. The findings are then discussed in relation to each of the six hypotheses that were developed. HYPOTHESIS I: The factor validity of work addiction and the relationship between work addiction factors will generalize to an adult working population scheme. Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor analyses were conducted using the principal components method with the purpose of extracting common factors from the 70-item WABI. Varimax rotations (Kaiser, 1960) were performed in order to determine independent factors (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1986) as well as to determine the best fit of the model. Procedures for replicating the original study as well as for the replication of the factor structure of the WABI are described in the following sections.

56

Replication of the Factor StructureBehavioral Items on the WABI As suggested by the previous researcher on which the current study is based (Haymon, 1992), items from the WABI were first divided into behavioral items (n=42) and attitudinal items (n=28) prior to initiating the factor analyses and subsequent procedures. In other words, factors were derived separately for the two domains of items. First, the behavioral items were examined. The initial factor analysis identified 13 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser, 1960), which accounted for 61.7% of the variance in this data set. Cattells (1966) scree test identified three factors to the left of the knee in the plot. These factors accounted for 29.4% of the shared variance and were listed as follows: 1) factor 1=16.1%; 2) factor 2=8.4%; and 3) factor 3=4.9%. However, because it was discovered that a large portion of items fell onto the first factor, an additional factor analysis using the principal components method and a varimax rotation was conducted in an attempt to find a model with factors that could be more clearly interpreted. This varimax rotation, a procedure used to adjust the factor model to obtain the best model fit, found these three factors accounted for 33.3% of the shared variance and were reported as follows: 1) factor 1=18.5%; 2) factor 2=9.3%; and 3) factor 3=5.5%. Utilizing the same criterion that was previously described, 35 items were retained. The number of items retained for each factor was as follows: 1) factor 1=15; 2) factor 2=13; and 3) factor 3=7. The varimax rotation clearly helped level the factor loadings, not only by allowing items to load at stronger levels onto each of the three factors, but also by balancing the number of items that loaded onto each factor. It should be noted that if any item with a factor loading greater than or equal to 0.3 loaded onto two factors, the item was considered a member of the factor with the highest loading. Factor loadings can be seen in Table 4.

57

Table 4. Factor Loadings for Behavioral Items. Factor: Construct


Factor 1: Anxiety
#3. I become fidgety whenever I have to wait for anything or anybody. #6. I swing from times when I am very productive to times when I cant seem to get anything done and back again. #7. My friends/family contact me more often than I contact them. #13. I forget where I put things. #19. There are times when I am so involved in my work that I do not remember much about what took place while I was working. #22. I feel exhausted. #23. I feel hurried. #26. I find it easy to concentrate. #28. I get headaches. #29. I am given to mood swings (from euphoria to depression). #33. I underestimate how long an activity will take and then feel pressured to complete it on time. #35. I have temper outbursts when things do not go as I have planned. #39. I procrastinate starting a project until I feel I have the time to do it perfectly. #41. I pay close attention to people with whom I am speaking. #42. I waste time. .528 .717 .316 .584 .488 .537 .621 .554 .414 .630 .456 .483 .466 -.413 .504 .408 -.446 .384 .508 .503 -.650 .343 .596 .485 .551 .400 -.408 .366 .329 .420 .639 .539 .522 .588 .375

EFA Loading

Factor 2: Obsessive-Compulsiveness
#2. I tend to schedule more activities than I have time for. #4. It is easy for me to relax. #5. I take on extra work that others wont do. #8. I self-impose unrealistic deadlines for completing projects. #15. I maximize every moment, but may still agonize over lost seconds. #16. It is easy for me to hang out and do nothing. #18. I wake up in the night thinking about work. #20. I place myself under abnormal amounts of pressure by over-committing and over-doing. #24. I think about work most of the time. #30. I take work with me most everywhere I go. #31. I carefully plan even minute details of activities. #36. I find it easy to say no and to limit the amount of time I commit to other people. #37. I spend more time with my friends than I do working.

Factor 3: Mania
#9. I am comfortable delegating work to others. #10. I spend time planning and thinking about the future. #11. I keep several things going at the same time. #14. I find myself doing two or three things at one time. #17. I keep lists of things to do. #27. I carefully organize my time. #38. I use time saving gadgets.

Items that did not load on factors:


#1.I enjoy my work more than I do socializing. #12. I frequently check my watch. #21. I engage in small talk with people I hardly know. #25. I find myself drinking (alcohol) when I am not working. #32. I suffer from insomnia (inability to sleep). #34. I would take the stairs rather than wait for an elevator. #40. I get up early no matter what time I go to sleep.

58

Estimates of the reliability of each factor were found using Cronbachs alpha coefficients, and are displayed in Table 5. Reliability is defined as the extent to which a measurement taken from a multiple-item scale reflects the true-score of a dimension being measured, subject to relative error. Therefore, the use of Cronbachs alpha coefficients, a level of internal consistency of a survey that measures the extent to which test takers who responded to a test item one way also responded to similar items the same way, was a valuable source of data. These coefficients range from zero to one, where a score of one represents a perfectly reliable factor. In other words, all items in a factor were perfectly reliable and measured the same construct (Gall, et al, 1996). Cronbachs alpha coefficients were examined for each of the three factors from the behavioral items on the WABI.

Table 5. Principal Factors Summary of Behavioral Items. Factor: Construct


Factor 1: Anxiety Factor 2: O-C Factor 3: Mania

Eigenvalue
3.86 1.26 1.14

% Variance
18.5 9.3 5.5

Cronbachs Alpha
.82 .79 .69

Reliability coefficients for the behavioral items on the WABI were .82 (factor 1), .79 (factor 2), and .69 (factor 3), suggesting that these items have moderate reliability and internal consistency. Therefore, even though these items were normed on young male college students (about 20 years of age), they appear very useful for this study involving mature elementary school teachers (80.5% over 30 years of age). The derived factor analyses, along with their moderate Cronbachs alpha reliabilities, demonstrated the ability to keep and label the three factors produced from the behavioral items. Consequently, based on the nature of the items that loaded onto each factor, the following names have been determined for each of the three factors: 59

1) factor 1=Anxiety, 2) factor 2=Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and 3) factor 3=Mania. Replication of the Factor StructureAttitudinal Items on the WABI The same procedures as previously described were conducted with the 28 attitudinal items on the WABI. The initial factor analysis identified 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser, 1960), which accounted for 61.3% of the variance in this data set. Cattells (1966) scree test identified two factors to the left of the knee on the plot, similar to the replicated study. These factors accounted for 25.7% of the shared variance and were listed as follows: 1) factor 4=18.2%; and 2) factor 5=7.5%. However, with the large amount of item loadings on factor four, an additional factor analysis using the principal components method and a varimax rotation was performed to balance the item loadings on each factor. Following the rotation, these two factors accounted for 25.7% of the shared variance and were reported as follows: 1) factor 4=18.2%; and 2) factor 5=7.5%. Utilizing the same criterion that was previously described, 23 items were retained. The number of items retained for each factor was as follows: 1) factor 4=14; and 2) factor 5=9. Again, the varimax rotation clearly helped level the factor loadings, not only by allowing items to load at stronger levels on each of the two factors, but also by balancing the number of items that loaded on each factor. It should be noted that if any item with a factor loading greater than or equal to 0.3 loaded onto two factors, the item was considered a member of the factor with the highest loading. Factor loadings can be seen in Table 6.

60

Table 6. Factor Loadings for Attitudinal Items. Factor: Construct


Factor 4: Intolerance
#43. People who know me well would describe me as a perfectionist. #46. I believe others should put in as many hours working as I do. #47. I believe if you love your work, it is okay to spend the majority of your time working. #48. I believe I work harder and put in longer hours than my peers. #49. I usually do not ask for help. #50. I am bothered when people put other activities ahead of work. #55. I have a low tolerance for mistakes. #56. People who know me well would describe me as serious and intense. #57. I am usually intolerant of others who do not work as hard as I do. #58. I often feel others take advantage of my willingness to accept other work. #59. I am bothered when others dont meet my expectations. #65. I believe wasting time is a horrible thing. #66. I become bored easily. #70. I seem to have more energy than my peers .437 .619 .380 .607 .326 .511 .522 .477 .629 .520 .452 .519 .391 -.491 .687 .733 .480 .617 .517 .386 .450 -.338 .446

EFA Loading

Factor 5: Self-Doubt
#44. I often think my work is not as good as it could be. #45. I often feel that I am never able to accomplish enough. #51. I often wish I had more balance (of work, love, and play) in my life. #52. Even when I seem to have no reason to, I worry about the future. #53. I seem to maintain a hurried, frenzied pace. #60. Spending long hours working has negatively impacted my relationships with my friends and/or family members. #64. I do not feel good about myself unless I keep busy. #67. I usually have a positive attitude. #68. I believe there is never enough time for me to do everything I want to do.

Items that did not load on factors:


#54. I am not bothered when people ask me to do something else when I am working. #61. I believe that money would solve most of my problems. #62. I believe my father (or stepfather if you lived with him) was/is an alcoholic. #63. I have several friends with whom I spend time. #69. I believe my mother (or stepmother if you lived with her) was/is an alcoholic.

Estimates of the reliability of each factor were found using Cronbachs alpha coefficients, and are presented in Table 7. Reliability coefficients for the attitudinal items on the WABI were .78 (factor 4), and .73 (factor 5), suggesting that the attitudinal items had moderate reliability and internal consistency. Therefore, even though these items were normed on male college students, they appeared very useful for this study involving elementary school teachers.

61

The derived factor analyses, along with their moderate Cronbachs alpha coefficients, demonstrated the ability to retain and label the two factors produced from the attitudinal items. Consequently, based on the nature of the items that loaded onto each factor, the following names have been determined for the two factors: 1) factor 4=Intolerance and 2) factor 5=Self-Doubt.

Table 7. Principal Factors Summary of Attitudinal Items. Factor: Construct


Factor 4: Intolerance Factor 5: Self-Doubt

Eigenvalue
2.97 1.31

% Variance
18.2 7.5

Cronbachs Alpha
.78 .73

Replication of the Factor Structure with the 58-Item WABI The separate factor analyses for the behavioral and attitudinal items of the WABI, using the varimax rotations (the rotation finding the best fit of the model), found a total of 58 items that successfully loaded onto the five factors. Therefore, utilizing these items only, an additional factor analysis using all of these behavioral and attitudinal items was performed to determine if the items would load similarly onto factors as they did when the factor analyses were performed separately. Since the items in the WABI were similar in content, it was expected that some items may load onto different factors than they previously did while using separate analyses. Interestingly, most of the items loaded on similar factors during the 58-item factor analysis as they did during the separate factor analyses for the behavioral and attitudinal items. Therefore, it was demonstrated that the factor structures were very similar, as shown in Table 8.

62

Table 8. Factor Loadings for Behavioral and Attitudinal Items (58-Item WABI).
Factor: Construct Factor 1: Anxiety
#3. I become fidgety whenever I have to wait for anything or anybody. #5. I take on extra work that others wont do. #6. I swing from times when I am very productive to times when I cant seem to get anything done and back again. #7. My friends/family contact me more often than I contact them. #8. I self-impose unrealistic deadlines for completing projects. #15. I maximize every moment, but may still agonize over lost seconds. #19. There are times when I am so involved in my work that I do not remember much about what took place while I was working. #22. I feel exhausted. #23. I feel hurried. #24. I think about work most of the time. #26. I find it easy to concentrate. #28. I get headaches. #29. I am given to mood swings (from euphoria to depression). #33. I underestimate how long an activity will take and then feel pressured to complete it on time. #41. I pay close attention to people with whom I am speaking. #42. I waste time. #51. I often wish I had more balance (of work, love, and play) in my life. .536 .457 .309 .460 .508 .525 .396 .496 .586 .410 .459 .443 .429 .463 -.545 .656 .457 .535 -.461 .453 -.421 .348 .661 .515 .501 -.505 .437 .449 .509 .334 .355 -.454 .348 .365 .363 .422 .301 .318

EFA Loading

Factor 2: Obsessive-Compulsiveness
#2. I tend to schedule more activities than I have time for. #4. It is easy for me to relax. #13. I forget where I put things. #16. It is easy for me to hang out and do nothing. #18. I wake up in the night thinking about work. #20. I place myself under abnormal amounts of pressure by over-committing and over-doing. #30. I take work with me most everywhere I go. #35. I have temper outbursts when things do not go as I have planned. #36. I find it easy to say no and to limit the amount of time I commit to other people. #44. I often think my work is not as work is not as it could be. #45. I often feel that I am never able to accomplish enough. #52. Even when I seem to have no reason to, I worry about the future. #64. I do not feel good about myself unless I keep busy. #66. I become bored easily. #67. I usually have a positive attitude.

Factor 3: Mania
#9. I am comfortable delegating work to others. #10. I spend time planning and thinking about the future. #11. I keep several things going at the same time. #14. I find myself doing two or three things at one time. #31. I carefully plan even minute details of activities. #38. I use time saving gadgets.

Factor 4: Intolerance
#17. I keep lists of things to do. #27. I carefully organize my time. #39. I procrastinate starting a project until I feel I have the time to do it perfectly. #43. People who know me well would describe me as a perfectionist. #46. I believe others should put in as many hours working as I do. .502 .676 -.320 .485 .667

63

Table 8 continued.
Factor: Construct
#47. I believe if you love your work, it is okay to spend the majority of your time working. #48. I believe I work harder and put in longer hours than my peers. #49. I usually do not ask for help. #55. I have a low tolerance for mistakes. #57. I am usually intolerant of others who do not work as hard as I do. #58. I often feel others take advantage of my willingness to accept other work.

EFA Loading
-.410 .367 .317 .593 .612 -.441

Factor 5: Self-Doubt
#37. I spend more time with my friends than I do working. #40. I get up early no matter what time I go to sleep. #53. I seem to maintain a hurried, frenzied pace. #56. People who know me well would describe me as serious and intense. #59. I am bothered when others dont meet my expectations. #60. Spending long hours working has negatively impacted my relationships with my friends and/or family members. #65. I believe wasting time is a horrible thing. .357 .319 .497 .677 .517 .455 .483

The initial factor analysis on the 58-item WABI identified 17 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser, 1960), which accounted for 63.7% of the variance in the data set. Cattells (1966) scree test identified five factors to the left of the knee on the plot. These factors accounted for 36.4% of the shared variance and were listed as follows: 1) factor 1=17.0%; 2) factor 2=7.2%; 3) factor 3=4.9%; 4) factor 4=3.9%; and 5) factor 5=3.4%. With the five factors accounting for 36.4% of the shared variance and the scree plot suggesting five factors, it was decided that five factors would be accepted, and the remaining 12 factors were determined to be error factors (Cattell, 1966). As a result, a second factor analysis using the principal components method was conducted for five factors. In turn, 54 of the 58 items were retained based on factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.30. The number of items retained for each factor was as follows: factor 1=34; 2) factor 2=8; 3) factor 3=5; 4) factor 4=6; and 5) factor 5=1. Similar to previous factor analyses, the large amount of item loadings on factor 1 and the disproportionate amount of item loadings on each of the other four factors suggested that it was important to calculate a rotated factor analysis in order to determine a better fit of the model. Therefore, a second factor analysis using the principal components method and a varimax rotation was conducted to help balance item loadings 64

on each of the five factors. The rotation found that the five factors accounted for 36.3% of the shared variance and were reported as follows: 1) factor 1=17.0%; 2) factor 2=7.2%; 3) factor 3=4.9%; 4) factor 4=3.9%; and 5) factor 5=3.4%. Utilizing the same criterion that was previously described, 56 items were retained. In other words, 56 of the 58 items were retained based on factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.30. The number of items retained for each factor was as follows: factor 1=17; 2) factor 2=15; 3) factor 3=6; 4) factor 4=11; and 5) factor 5=7. Again, the varimax rotation clearly helped level the factor loadings, allowing items to load at stronger levels on each of the five factors and to balance the number of items that loaded onto each factor. It should be noted that if any item with a factor loading greater than or equal to 0.3 loaded onto two factors, the item was considered a member of the faction with the highest loading. Although these five factors did not have identical item loadings as when the factor analyses were performed separately with the behavioral and attitudinal items, this fivefactor model did show similar results. However, because the factor analyses performed separately with the behavioral and attitudinal items produced stronger factors (items had stronger factor loadings on these analyses than on the 58-item factor analysis), the factors derived from the separate factor analyses were used for the following analyses. Estimates of the reliability of each factor were calculated using Cronbachs alpha coefficients, and are displayed in Table 9. These coefficients showed moderate reliability and were .76 (factor 1), .64 (factor 2), .75 (factor 3), .46 (factor 4), and .41 (factor 5). However, because the alpha coefficients appeared to be less reliable than those determined when the factor analyses were performed separately on the behavioral and attitudinal items, further support is given to using the separate factor analyses for later analyses.

65

Table 9. Principal Factors Summary of Behavioral and Attitudinal Items (58-Item WABI) Factor: Construct
Factor 1: Anxiety Factor 2: O-C Factor 3: Mania Factor 4: Intolerance Factor 5: Self-Doubt

Eigenvalue
4.41 1.86 1.39 1.17 1.03

% Variance
17.0 7.2 4.9 3.9 3.4

Cronbachs Alpha
.76 .64 .75 .46 .41

In sum, it was concluded that the hypothesis was accepted. In other words, the factor validity and the relationship between work addiction factors generalized to an adult working population scheme. Exploratory Factor Analysis Correlations Correlations among the derived factors are presented in Table 10. Replacement with the mean controlled for all missing data and values. The factors for these correlations were obtained using an exploratory factor analysis, creating new factors that were comprised of several variables. Variable weights were consequently utilized in developing these new factors. The correlation between Anxiety (factor 1) and Mania (factor 3) was .31, demonstrating a statistically significant yet only slightly moderate relationship between these traits. The correlation between Anxiety and Self-Doubt (factor 5) was .54. This was the most statistically significant relationship of those examined, although the association was still only moderate in strength.

66

Table 10. Correlations Among Factors of the WABI. Factors


Anxiety O-C Mania Intolerance Self-Doubt

40.05 31.33 18.06 32.48 21.69

SD
6.75 5.07 3.92 8.54 3.51

Anxiety
1.00 .11 .31** .07 .54**

O-C

Mania

Intolerance

Self-Doubt

1.00 .08 .41** .37** 1.00 .19** .12 1.00 .12 1.00

**Correlation is statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Additionally, there was a statistically significant relationship between ObsessiveCompulsiveness (factor 2) and Intolerance (factor 4) (.41) and ObsessiveCompulsiveness and Self-Doubt (.37). The last statistically significant correlation was found between Mania and Intolerance, but the coefficient magnitude (.19) is weak. Consequently, it is prudent to wonder if the large sample size obtained in this study influenced the statistical significance of these moderate to weak correlations. Other correlations had weak, non-statistically significant relationships, such as between Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsiveness (.11), Anxiety and Intolerance (.07), ObsessiveCompulsiveness and Mania (.08), Mania and Self-Doubt (.12), and Intolerance and SelfDoubt (.12). However, multicollinearity was not considered a problem due to the moderate to weak correlations. In other words, factors were not measuring the same concept as one another. The conclusion was made that the five factors of the WABI were able to be viewed as independent constructs. Confirmatory Factor Analysis With the use of an exploratory factor analysis, five factors were identified based on the responses of 296 elementary school teachers. However, although this study sought to find the best model fits for this population, it also attempted to determine if the WABI captured the trait of work addiction similarly in different populations. In the original study conducted on male college students, items fell into five factors that the original 67

researcher labeled Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Intolerance, and SelfDoubt, similar to the current study (Haymon, 1992). However, some of the factors in the present study had slightly different items that loaded onto them. Therefore, using the statistical software package LISREL, three confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to determine the model fits based on the original 70 items that loaded onto the five factors. In other words, analyses were performed to replicate the original study to determine how well the items fit with the original studys five factors. The first confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the factors labeled Anxiety, ObsessiveCompulsiveness, and Mania because these factors related to the behavioral items. The second confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the factors labeled Intolerance and Self-Doubt since these factors related to the attitudinal items. The third confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on all five factors together for a combined analysis. The original researchers model did not fit the current data as well as the model created using the exploratory factor analysis. The chi-square statistics was 73.21 (p<.05) on the first CFA , 53.77 (p<.05) on the second CFA, and 132.71 (p=0.05) on the third CFA. This resulted in the conclusion to accept the alternate hypothesis that the models were correct. In addition, the chi-square/df ratios were 1.73, 1.89, and 1.88, respectively, representing good model fits. The reported root mean square residual of approximation (RMSEA) was approximately 0.061 for the first CFA, 0.084 for the second CFA, and 0.077 for the third CFA. These gave acceptable fits, as < 0.05 value is often considered to reflect a good fit and between 0.05 and 0.08 is considered to reflect an acceptable fit. The goodness of fit indices were 0.93, 0.89, and 0.92, respectively, while the adjusted goodness of fit indices were 0.92, 0.87, and 0.89, respectively. The comparative fit indices were 0.88, 0.82, and 0.85, respectively, and the normed fit indices were 0.92, 0.89, and 0.91, respectively. Table 11 presents the goodness of fit statistics.

68

Table 11. Goodness of Fit Statistics for Behavioral and Attitudinal Items. Model
Behavioral Items Attitudinal Items Combined

2/df
1.73 1.89 1.88

GFI
.93 .89 .92

Adj. GFI
.92 .87 .89

NFI
.92 .89 .91

CFI
.88 .82 .85

RMSEA
.061 .084 .077

The goodness of fit indices, adjusted goodness of fit indices, comparative fit indices, and normed fit indices all show similar values to the common target of 0.9. Finally, the largest standardized covariance residuals are 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6, respectively, in magnitude, values reasonably consistent with good model fits to the data (> 3.0 is considered problematic). Since this model fits the data well, and all results are admissible and reasonable in the context of this substantive area, it was concluded that the hypothesized measurement model was acceptable. The loadings, reflecting the validity of each observed variable as a measure of the latent variable, were generally moderate in loading values. Upon examination of the models, from both the exploratory factor analyses and the confirmatory factor analysis, it was determined that the best model fit was observed in the exploratory factor analysis, demonstrating stronger factor loadings as well as factors that housed items that were more similar in nature than what was found in the confirmatory factor analysis and thus the original study. The associated raw score factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Table 12.

69

Table 12. Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Factor/Variable
Factor 1: Anxiety
#3. I become fidgety whenever I have to wait for anything or anybody. #5. I take on extra work that others wont do. #19. There are times when I am so involved in my work that I do not remember much about what took place while I was working. #22. I feel exhausted. #23. I feel hurried. #24. I think about work most of the time. #26. I find it easy to concentrate. #28. I get headaches. #29. I am given to mood swings (from euphoria to depression). #35. I have temper outbursts when things do not go as I have planned. .386 .422 .321 .435 .511 .415 .476 .432 .325 .573 .390 .418 .420 .386 .401 .356 .300 -.330 .348 .411 .379 .422 .488 .378 .373 .549 .354 -.379 .533 .567 .581 .550 .599 .720 .578 .677 .590 .553 .743 .595 .662 .670 .591 .613 .562 .501 .514 .540 .622 .600 .634 .711 .596 .589 .820 .567 .601 .814

Std. Loading

Reliability (R2)

Factor 2: Obsessive-Compulsiveness
#10. I spend time planning and thinking about the future. #15. I maximize every moment, but may still agonize over lost seconds. #16. It is easy for me to hang out and do nothing. #17. I keep lists of things to do. #27. I carefully organize my time. #30. I take work with me most everywhere I go. #31. I carefully plan even minute details of activities. #37. I spend more time with my friends than I do working. #40. I get up early no matter what time I go to sleep. #42. I waste time.

Factor 3: Mania
#2. I tend to schedule more activities than I have time for. #5. I take on extra work that others wont do. #8. I self-impose unrealistic deadlines for completing projects. #11. I keep several things going at the same time. #14. I find myself doing two or three things at one time. #20. I place myself under abnormal amounts of pressure by over-committing and over-doing. #21. I engage in small talk with people I hardly know. #36. I find it easy to say no and to limit the amount of time I commit to other people. #39. I procrastinate starting a project until I feel I have the time to do it perfectly.

Factor 4: Intolerance
#43. People who know me well would describe me as a perfectionist. #46. I believe others should put in as many hours working as I do. #48. I believe I work harder and put in longer hours than my peers. #50. I am bothered when people put other activities ahead of work. #55. I have a low tolerance for mistakes. #57. I am usually intolerant of others who do not work as hard as I do. #59. I am bothered when others dont meet my expectations. #64. I do not feel good about myself unless I keep busy. #65. I believe wasting time is a horrible thing. #70. I seem to have more energy than my peers .496 .414 .324 .517 .435 .522 .440 .341 .391 .320 .635 .597 .515 .681 .616 .697 .622 .540 .568 .506

70

Table 12-continued. Factor/Variable


Factor 5: Self-Doubt
#44. I often think my work is not as work is not as it could be. #45. I often feel that I am never able to accomplish enough. #52. Even when I seem to have no reason to, I worry about the future. #53. I seem to maintain a hurried, frenzied pace. #54. I am not bothered when people ask me to do something else when I am working. #63. I have several friends with whom I spend time. #66. I become bored easily. #67. I usually have a positive attitude. .403 .316 .577 .452 .341 .369 .361 -.334 .601 .498 .753 .644 .530 .582 .557 .516

Std. Loading

Reliability (R2)

Correlations among the factors are presented in Table 13. The correlation between Anxiety (factor 1) and Mania (factor 3) was .29, demonstrating a statistically significant yet only slightly moderate relationship between these traits. The correlation between Anxiety and Self-Doubt (factor 5) was .61, demonstrating the most statistically significant, yet still only moderate, relationship of those obtained. Additionally, there was a statistically significant relationship between Obsessive-Compulsiveness (factor 2) and Intolerance (factor 4) (.35) and Obsessive-Compulsiveness and Self-Doubt (.41). The least statistically significant correlation was found between Mania and Intolerance (.22), demonstrating a weak association.

71

Table 13. Factor Correlations. Factors


Anxiety O-C Mania Intolerance Self-Doubt

40.05 31.33 18.06 32.48 21.69

SD
6.75 5.07 3.92 8.54 3.51

Anxiety
1.00 .14 .29** .09 .61**

O-C

Mania

Intolerance

Self-Doubt

1.00 .12 .35** .41** 1.00 .22** .11 1.00 .15 1.00

**Correlation is statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Consequently, one must speculate if the large sample size obtained in this study influenced the statistical significance of the moderate to weak correlations. Other correlations, such as between Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsiveness (.14), Anxiety and Intolerance (.09) Obsessive-Compulsiveness and Mania (.12), Mania and Self-Doubt (.11), and Intolerance and Self-Doubt (.15) showed to have weak, non-statistically significant relationships. The conclusion to use the results from the EFA in subsequent analyses was confirmed by comparing the findings from the EFA to the CFA. The EFA in this study produced stronger model fits and larger item loadings on each factor. Therefore, future analyses were based on the five factors identified by the EFA. HYPOTHESIS II: A direct relationship will exist between Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Canonical Correlation A canonical correlation analysis was performed in order to determine if an inverse relationship existed between other work addition traits as measured by the Workaholism Scales (Spence and Robbins, 1992) and their attitudes and behaviors toward work as measured by the WABI. In the canonical correlation analysis, the WABI predictor variables of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Intolerance, and Self-Doubt 72

were correlated with the criterion variables of Enjoyment, Commitment, and Drive. The canonical correlation analysis found a negative, statistically significant multivariate relationship between these predictor and criterion variables, thus accepting the alternate hypothesis.

Table 14. Canonical Correlation Matrix. Factors


Anxiety

Enjoyment
-.245 -.216 -.283 -.268 -.337

Commitment
-.318 -.322 -.266 -.298 -.254

Drive
-.324 -.340 -.349 -.310 -.260

O-C
Mania Intolerance Self-Doubt

Upon examining the predictor and criterion variables used in this analysis, the final model in the canonical correlation analysis found that Self-Doubt was the most powerful predictor of Enjoyment, while Obsessive-Compulsiveness was the most powerful predictor of Commitment, and Mania was the most powerful predictor of Drive. Three statistically significant roots, or linear variates from the predictor and criterion variables, were identified using this canonical correlation analysis, which together accounted for 44% of the variance between the prediction and outcome measures. The first significant canonical root (X2=53.19, R=.479, p<.01) accounted for 25% of the shared variance between the predictor and criterion variables. The second significant canonical root (X2=31.87, R=.354, p=.02) accounted for 10% of the shared variance between the predictor and criterion variables. Also, the third significant canonical root (X2=26.72, R=.298, p=.02) accounted for 9% of the shared variance between the predictor and criterion variables. Table 15 presents the standardized 73

canonical coefficients for the variables located in the three statistically significant canonical variates. Standardized canonical coefficients with a magnitude of .35 or greater were utilized for the canonical variates, and the strongest loadings were identified and applied.

Table 15. Canonical Loadings and Standardized Canonical Coefficients. Root 1 Variable
Standardized Canonical Coefficient

Root 2
Standardized Canonical Coefficient

Root 3
Standardized Canonical Coefficient

Predictor Variables Anxiety O-C Mania Self-Doubt Intolerance Criterion Variables Enjoyment Commitment Drive .764 .318 .244 .420 .628 .300 .411 .399 .723 .325 .169 .282 .621 .136 .314 .734 .222 .413 .386 .367 .381 .689 .227 .311

For the predictor variable set, the variable that most highly correlated with the first variate was Self-Doubt (standardized canonical coeff. of .621). The criterion variable of Enjoyment (standardized canonical coeff. of .764) was the most highly correlated with the first variate. The predictor variable most highly correlated with the second variate was Obsessive-Compulsiveness (standardized canonical coeff. of .734), and the criterion variable of Commitment (standardized canonical coeff. of .628) was the most highly correlated with the second variate. The predictor variable most highly correlated with the third variate was Mania (standardized canonical coeff. of .689), and the criterion variable most highly correlated with the third variate was Drive (standardized canonical coeff. of 74

.723). Anxiety and Intolerance did not converge with the Workaholism scales. Thus, the WABI measures additional dimensions of work addiction. Table 16 displays information regarding the series of tests that was conducted for the canonical correlations in the model. The statistical characteristics of the canonical roots are provided. The first canonical root was labeled Contentment, as it represented the strong relationship between Self-Doubt and Enjoyment. The second canonical root was labeled Dedication, as it represented the strong relationship between ObsessiveCompulsiveness and Commitment. The third canonical root was labeled Energy, as it represented the strong relationship between Mania and Drive.

Table 16. Statistical Characteristics of Significant Canonical Roots. Root Wilks Chi-Square
53.19 31.87 26.72

p
<.01 .02 .02

R
.479 .354 .298

R2
.229 .125 .089

1 Contentment .512 2 Dedication .498 3 Energy .401

A sensitivity analysis of the final canonical model was conducted in order to determine the contribution that each predictor variable had based on the explanation of variance in the criterion variable in the model. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the canonical correlations decreased when the Self-Doubt, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania variables were each individually removed from the model, and the model remained relatively the same when the Anxiety and Intolerance variables were individually removed from the model. These findings suggested that Self-Doubt, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania shared the most variance with the criterion variables in the model. In sum, a direct relationship did exist between Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales and the WABI, thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis.

75

HYPOTHESIS III: An inverse relationship will exist between health status and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Multiple Regression Analysis In order to determine if an inverse relationship existed between ones health status and ones work attitudes and behaviors, a hierarchical multiple regression using teachers RAND 36-Item Health Survey scores and their WABI scores was conducted. Results from the correlation matrix can be found in Table 17.

Table 17. Correlations Among Factors of the WABI and Health Status. Factors
1. Anxiety 2. O-C 3. Mania 4. Intolerance 5. Self-Doubt 6. Health

40.05 31.33 18.06 32.48 21.69 14.20

SD
6.75 5.07 3.92 8.54 3.51 5.14

Anxiety
1.00 .11 .31** .07 .54** -.37**

O-C

Mania

Intol.

S-D

Health

1.00 .08 .41* .37** .23** 1.00 .19** .12 -.11 1.00 .12 .06 1.00 .09 1.00

**Correlation is statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The model R, adjusted R, change in R, standard error of estimate, and F scores were calculated through five different models (model 1=Anxiety; model 2=Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsiveness; model 3=Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania; model 4=Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, and Self-Doubt; and model 5=Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Self-Doubt, and Intolerance), resulting in strong overall relationships. The overall model R, model 5, reflecting the overall strength of relationships between the independent variables and health status, was statistically significant, F [.01; 5, 295] = 3.02, p<.01, and explained 20.3% of the variance in health status. The adjusted 76

model R2 in each model, compensating for the positive bias in the R, were .397, .419, .435, .438, and .439, respectively. In addition, Anxiety was found to be the largest statistically significant predictor of health status, and stronger as a predictor than the trait of Obsessive-Compulsiveness, the second largest predictor of health status. Table 18 presents these results.

Table 18. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis on Health Status. R Adj. R R Std. Error of Estimate
18.258 18.041 17.872 17.841 17.827

p-value

1 2 3 4 5

.400 .425 .444 .450 .454

.397 .419 .435 .438 .439

.400 .025 .019 .006 .004

32.803 20.857 16.347 12.810 10.555

<.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

All values are based on standardized scores. a Model 1 = Anxiety Model 2 = Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness Model 3 = Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness + Mania Model 4 = Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness + Mania + Self-Doubt Model 5 = Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness + Mania + Self-Doubt + Intolerance

The standardized effect estimates, standard errors, t-scores, confidence intervals, and significance levels of health status are shown in Table 19. For each model, these calculations were found for each predictor as it entered the model. The effect estimates reflect unit changes in health status for every unit change in the predictor variables, controlling for other factors. Anxiety had the largest effect estimates in each model, followed by Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Self-Doubt, and Intolerance.

77

Table 19. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis on Health Status. Predictor Factors
Model: 1) Anxiety 2) Anxiety O-C 3) Anxiety O-C Mania 4) Anxiety O-C Mania Self-Doubt 5) Anxiety O-C Mania Self-Doubt Intolerance -.42 -.42 -.26 -.42 -.26 -.24 -.36 -.22 -.24 -.20 -.34 -.18 -.25 -.23 -.18 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.28 1.16 1.04 1.38 1.32 1.33 1.06 1.44 1.22 -5.73 -5.80 -2.85 -5.85 -2.87 -2.56 -3.92 -1.96 -2.58 -1.42 -3.53 -1.12 -2.78 -1.71 -1.21 -3.99, -8.18 -4.02, -8.16 -.92, -5.06 -4.04, -8.14 -.94, -5.04 -.62, -4.71 -2.50, -7.54 -.01, -4.54 -.63, -4.72 -.75, -4.68 -2.05, -7.24 -.13, -4.09 -.86, -5.05 -.37, -5.29 -.93, -3.87 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 .011 <.01 .050 .010 .156 <.01 .266 <.01 .088 .229

Std. Error

95% CI

p-value

All values are based on standardized scores.

While Anxiety and Mania were found to be significant predictors of health status in all five models. Self-Doubt and Intolerance were not found to be statistically significant. However, when combined with the factors of Anxiety, ObsessiveCompulsiveness, and Mania in model 5, the model was still, overall, statistically significant. Consequently, it appeared that the factors of Anxiety, ObsessiveCompulsiveness, and Mania most greatly affected teachers health statuses. These three factors were found to be significant at the p<.01 level when grouped together; however, when the factors of Self-Doubt and Intolerance were added to the final model, these two factors were shown to have a negative impact on the overall model and therefore to be weak predictors of the dependent variable. The t-values demonstrated evidence to accept the alternate hypothesis, and showed to be significant in that the factors of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania did significantly impact teachers health statuses. However, it should be noted that although these three factors significantly impacted teachers health statuses, their t-values

78

were quite small, demonstrating relatively small impacts on the dependent variable. It is possible that the large sample size may have resulted in these small t-values becoming statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval gives the range that is 95% certain that the magnitude of the true value of the regression coefficient will fall between the two values. In sum, it was determined that the alternate hypothesis was accepted. In other words, an inverse relationship existed between health status and the WABI. HYPOTHESIS IV: An inverse relationship will exist between job satisfaction and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Canonical Correlation A canonical correlation analysis was performed in order to determine if an inverse relationship existed between teachers job satisfaction as measured by the Job Description Index (JDI) and their attitudes and behaviors toward work as measured by the WABI. In the canonical correlation analysis, the WABI predictor variables of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Intolerance, and Self-Doubt were correlated with the criterion variables of teachers general job satisfaction, satisfaction with work, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with coworkers. The canonical correlation analysis found a negative, statistically significant multivariate relationship between these predictor and criterion variables, thus accepting the alternate hypothesis.

79

Table 20. Canonical Correlation Matrix. Factors General job satisf.


-.321 -.245 -.222 -.256 -.148

Satisfaction with work


-.282 -.263 -.181 -.201 -.180

Satisfaction with supervision


-.199 -.176 -.257 -.156 -.251

Satisfaction with coworkers


-.180 -.144 -.236 -.096 -.213

1. Anxiety

2. O-C
3. Mania 4. Intolerance 5. Self-Doubt

Upon examining the predictor and criterion variables used in this analysis, the final model in the canonical correlation analysis found that Intolerance was the most powerful predictor of teachers general job satisfaction and satisfaction with work. Obsessive-Compulsiveness was the most powerful predictor of teachers satisfaction with supervision, and Anxiety was the most powerful predictor of satisfaction with coworkers. Three statistically significant roots, or linear variates from the predictor and criterion variables, were identified using this canonical correlation analysis and accounted for 46% of the shared variance. The first significant canonical root (X2=67.92, df=20, R=.551, p<.01) accounted for 22% of the shared variance between the predictor and criterion variables. The second significant canonical root (X2=39.12, df=12, R=.346, p=.01) accounted for 12% of the shared variance between the predictor and criterion variables. Also, the third significant canonical root (X2=33.65, df=9, R=.334, p=.01) accounted for 12% of the shared variance between the predictor and criterion variables. Table 21 presents the standardized canonical coefficients for the variables located in the three statistically significant canonical variates. Standardized canonical coefficients with a magnitude of .35 or greater were utilized for the canonical variates, and the strongest loadings were identified and applied.

80

Table 21. Canonical Loadings and Standardized Canonical Coefficients. Root 1 Variable
Standardized Canonical Coefficient

Root 2
Standardized Canonical Coefficient

Root 3
Standardized Canonical Coefficient

Predictor Variables Anxiety O-C Mania Self-Doubt Intolerance Criterion Variables General Job Satis. Satis. w/ Work Satis. w/ Super. Satis. w/ Cowork. -.653 -.771 -.236 -.097 -325 -.334 .800 .221 -.111 -.290 .199 .672 -.297 .198 .247 -.054 -.868 .195 -.717 .299 .124 -.133 -.697 .205 .079 -.169 -.324

For the predictor variable set, the variable that most highly correlated with the first variate was Intolerance (standardized canonical coefficient of -.868). The criterion variables of teachers general job satisfaction (standardized canonical coefficient of -.653) and satisfaction with work (standardized canonical coefficient of -.771) were the most highly correlated with the first variate. The predictor variable most highly correlated with the second variate was Obsessive-Compulsiveness (standardized canonical coefficient of -.717), and the criterion variable of satisfaction with supervision (standardized canonical coefficient of .800) was the most highly correlated with the second variate. The predictor variable most highly correlated with the third variate was Anxiety (standardized canonical coefficient of -.697), and the criterion variable most highly correlated with the third variate was satisfaction with coworkers (standardized canonical coefficient of .672). Table 22 displays information regarding the series of tests that was conducted for the canonical correlations in the model. The statistical characteristics of the canonical 81

roots are provided. The first canonical root was labeled Work Satisfaction, as it represented the strong relationship between Intolerance, teachers general job satisfaction, and satisfaction with work. The second canonical root was labeled Supervision Satisfaction, as it represented the strong relationship between ObsessiveCompulsiveness and satisfaction with supervision. The third canonical root was labeled Coworker Satisfaction, as it represented the strong relationship between Anxiety and satisfaction with coworkers. Interestingly, Mania and Self-Doubt did not load on any of the criterion variables, thus displaying low associations between these variables.

Table 22. Statistical Characteristics of Significant Canonical Roots. Root


1 Work Satisfaction 2 Supervisor Satis. 3 Coworker Satis.

Wilks
.634 .598 .417

Chi-Square
67.92 39.12 33.65

DF
20 12 9

p
<.01 .01 .01

R
.551 .346 .334

R2
.304 .120 .112

A sensitivity analysis of the final canonical model was conducted in order to determine the contribution that each predictor variable had based on the explanation of variance in the criterion variable in the model. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the canonical correlations decreased when the Intolerance, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Anxiety variables were each individually removed from the model, and the model remained relatively the same when the Mania and Self-Doubt variables were individually removed from the model. These findings suggested that Intolerance, ObsessiveCompulsiveness, and Anxiety shared the most variance with the criterion variables in the model. In addition, each of the roots demonstrated to be statistically significant (p=.01) and had chi-square/df ratios that presented good model fits. In sum, three significant canonical roots were discovered. The first root (Work Satisfaction) taps into environmental relationships including types of children taught, the second root (Supervisor Satisfaction) taps into authority relationships, and the third root 82

(Coworker Satisfaction) taps into peer relationships. It was justified to conclude that an inverse relationship did exist between job satisfaction and the WABI, thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis. HYPOTHESIS V: A direct relationship will exist between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Multiple Regression Analysis A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if a direct relationship existed between teachers performances beyond minimum job requirements and the five factors developed earlier from the WABI. Table 23 displays the results.

Table 23. Correlations Among Factors of the WABI and Performance Beyond Ones Minimum Job Requirements. Factors
1. Anxiety 2. O-C 3. Mania 4. Intolerance 5. Self-Doubt 6. Perf. Bey.

40.05 31.33 18.06 32.48 21.69

SD
6.75 5.07 3.92 8.54 3.51

Anxiety
1.00 .11 .31** .07 .54** .33**

O-C

Mania

Intol.

S-D

Perf. Bey.

1.00 .08 .41* .37** .29** 1.00 .19** .12 .26** 1.00 .12 .35** 1.00 .24** 1.00

50.02 11.44

**Correlation is statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The model R, adjusted R, change in R, standard error of estimate, and F scores were calculated through five different models (model 1=Intolerance; model 2=Intolerance and Anxiety; model 3=Intolerance, Anxiety, and Obsessive-Compulsiveness; model 4=Intolerance, Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania; and model

83

5=Intolerance, Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, and Self-Doubt), resulting in strong overall strengths of relationships.

Table 24. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis on Performances Beyond Ones Minimum Job Requirements. R
1 2 3 4 5 .377 .388 .398 .408 .408

Adj. R
.374 .382 .388 .396 .393

R
.377 .011 .010 .010 .000

Std. Error of Estimate


11.009 10.962 10.924 10.880 10.897

F
24.642 14.188 10.537 8.815 7.048

p-value
<.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

All values are based on standardized scores. a Model 1 = Intolerance Model 2 = Intolerance + Anxiety Model 3 = Intolerance + Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness Model 4 = Intolerance + Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness + Mania Model 5 = Intolerance + Anxiety + Obsessive-Compulsiveness + Mania + Self-Doubt

The overall model R, model 5, reflecting the overall strength of relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable was statistically significant, F [.01; 5, 295] = 3.02, p<.01, and explained 16.8% of the variance in the dependent variable. The adjusted model R2 for each model, compensating for the positive bias in the R, were .374, .382, .388, .396, and .393, respectively. In addition, the factor of Intolerance was found to be the largest statistically significant predictor of teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements, and considerably stronger of a predictor than the trait of Anxiety, the second largest predictor of teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements. The standardized effect estimates, standard errors, t-scores, confidence intervals, and significance levels of teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements are shown in Table 25. For each model, these calculations were found for each predictor as it entered the model. The effect estimates reflect unit changes in the dependent

84

variable, teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements, for every unit change in the predictor variables, controlling for other factors. Intolerance had the largest effect estimates in each model, followed by Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, and Self-Doubt. Intolerance was the only factor that was found to be a significant predictor in each of the models, demonstrating its strong impact on the dependent variable. Anxiety, which entered the model as the second strongest predictor of teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements, was affected by the other factors, leading the Anxiety factor to display non-significant impacts on the dependent variable in subsequent models.

Table 25. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis on Performance Beyond Ones Minimum Job Requirements. Predictor Factors
1) Intolerance 2) Intolerance Anxiety 3) Intolerance Anxiety O-C 4) Intolerance Anxiety O-C Mania 5) Intolerance Anxiety O-C Mania Self-Doubt

-.38 -.39 -.21 -.34 -.20 -.21 -.32 -.20 -.22 -.20 -.31 -.19 -.23 -.21 -.12

Std. Error
.64 .64 .64 .70 .64 .70 .71 .64 .70 .65 .74 .81 .81 .65 .88

t
-4.96 -5.11 -1.88 -3.96 -1.83 -1.74 -3.51 -1.80 -1.90 -1.84 -3.27 -1.24 -1.79 -1.86 -.30

95% CI
-1.92, -5.44 -2.01, -5.53 -.06, -2.46 -1.39, -4.15 -.09, -2.42 -.16, -2.59 -1.10, -3.90 -.11, -2.40 -.05, -2.70 -.08, -2.47 -.97, -3.90 -.59, -2.58 -.15, -3.05 -.07, -2.49 2.00, -1.46

p-value
<.01 <.01 .062 <.01 .069 .082 <.01 .073 .058 .067 <.01 .218 .075 .065 .761

All values are based on standardized scores.

Therefore, although Anxiety tends to impact teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements, it showed less of an impact as additional factors were considered. The factor Self-Doubt was not found to be statistically significant; however,

85

model 5, which included this factor, was statistically significant. Consequently, it appeared that the factors of Intolerance, Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania most greatly affected teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements. These four factors were found to be strong predictors of the dependent variable, and the factor Self-Doubt showed very little impact on the dependent variable. Therefore, it appeared that the best possible model would be to exclude Self-Doubt and retain the four remaining factors as they demonstrated to be significant predictors of teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements. The t-values did display evidence to accept the alternate hypothesis, and showed to be significant in that the factor Intolerance did impact teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements. It should be noted that, although having a quite small tvalue, this factor did show to be significant. This may be due to the large sample size in this study, as occasionally, large sample sizes may cause small t-values of variables to become statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval gives the range which is 95% confident that the magnitude of the true value of the regression coefficient will fall between the two values. In sum, the alternate hypothesis was accepted, that a direct relationship existed between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the WABI. HYPOTHESIS VI: Self-perception of work addiction will correspond with the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) factors. Discriminant Analysis A discriminant analysis was conducted in order to differentiate between those teachers that believed themselves to be work addicted individuals from those that did not believe themselves to be work addicted individuals. This procedure identified correct classifications of individuals based on their WABI responses as well as by their responses to items pertaining to their beliefs and self-perceptions. A discriminant analysis was performed between participants self-perceptions of their own work addiction and their actual scores on the WABI. The group means for the self-perceived non-work addicted group (n=132) and the self-perceived work addicted group (n=164) were significantly different on all five dimensions of work addiction: 1)

86

Anxiety: F=2.88; p=.09; 2) Obsessive-Compulsiveness: F=147.01; p=<.01; 3) Mania: F=6.79; p=.01; 4) Intolerance: F=53.42; p=<.01; and 5) Self-Doubt5: F=46.11; p=<.01.

Table 26. Classification Function Coefficients and Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients. Factor Group Membership Work-Addicted Not Work-Addicted Std. Can. Discrim. Function Coeff.
.378 .703 .496 .231 .124

Anxiety O-C Mania Intolerance Self-Doubt

1.89 1.15 .09 2.21 .46

1.83 1.02 .03 2.38 .67

*The classification of a teacher into a group membership can be accomplished by computing a composite score from each of the two groups using the coefficients shown in each column and the teachers scores on the classification variables on the WABI. The teacher is assigned to the group with the largest composite score.

Table 26 displays the classification function coefficients and standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for each of the five factors. The classification function coefficients were used to aid in the assignment of teachers to one of two group memberships, work addicted and not work addicted. Once combined with teachers responses on the WABI, scores were produced that place each teacher into a particular group membership. The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients represented within-group correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant functions. In descending order, these coefficients were as follows: Obsessive-Compulsiveness (.703), Mania (.496), Anxiety (.378), Intolerance (.231), and Self-Doubt (.124).

87

Additional statistical tests that were computed are displayed in Table 27 and were as follows: 1) Eigenvalue=0.093; 2) Canonical Correlation=0.289; 3) Wilks Lambda=0.70; and 4) Chi-square=105.25.

Table 27. Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions. Function Eigenvalue Canonical Correlation
.289

Wilks Lambda
.70

p-value

.093

105.25

<.001

The results of the discriminant function analysis, displayed in Table 28, show the percentage of correct classifications (hit rate) to be 73.5% for participants who scored in the non-work addicted range of the WABI and also perceived themselves as non-work addicted. Similarly, the discriminant function analysis showed the percentage of correct classifications to be 69.5% for participants who scored in the work addicted range of the WABI and also perceived themselves as work addicted. The overall correct classification was 71.3% based on participants scores on the WABI and self-perceived work addiction. In other words, 71.3%, or almost three-fourths, of teachers involved in this study accurately identified themselves to be, or not be, work-addicted individuals based on their perceived levels of work addiction and WABI scores.

88

Table 28. Classification Results for Work-Addiction. Predicted Group Membership


Work Addiction Work-Addicted Not Work-Addicted Work-Addicted 114 (69.5%) 35 (26.5%) Not Work-Addicted 50 (30.5%) 97 (73.5%) 164 (100%) 132 (100%)

Total

Percentages of correct classifications are shown in parentheses. 71.3% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Therefore, these statistics demonstrated that the teachers involved in this study have a solid understanding of their work-related behaviors and attitudes and that their perceptions of themselves are comparable to their scores on the WABI. From another angle, the WABI was quite able to identify work addiction in teachers, as 71.3% of teacher perceived themselves to be work addicted or non-work addicted and were classified correctly. In sum, the alternate hypothesis was accepted, that teachers selfperceptions of work addiction did correspond with the WABI. Summary of Results Section The six alternate hypotheses presented in this study were accepted. More specifically, hypothesis one was accepted because the factor validity of work addiction and the relationship between work addiction factors did generalize to an adult working population scheme. In other words, the WABI in this study revealed the same factors as the decade-old foundation research on which this study is based (Haymon, 1992). This result was found in an adult working population versus a student population that was utilized in the previous study. Hypothesis two was accepted which stated that a direct relationship existed between Spence and Robbins(1992) Workaholism Scales and the WABI. Spence and Robbins worker traits were found to have a direct relationship with the five subscales of the WABI. The Self-Doubt factor had the highest mean for the Enjoyment variable, the

89

Obsessive-Compulsiveness factor mean was the highest for the Commitment variable, and the Mania factor mean was the highest for the Drive variable. Hypothesis three was also accepted which stated that an inverse relationship existed between health status and the WABI. The general health index of the RAND 36Item Health Survey was inversely related to three of the WABI subscales. In other words, the factors of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania were found to significantly, negatively influence teachers perceived health statuses. Moreover, Hypothesis four was accepted which stated that an inverse relationship existed between job satisfaction and the WABI. The three job satisfaction variables including satisfaction with work, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with coworkers, as well as and overall job satisfaction, were inversely related to the various subscales of the WABI. In other words, Intolerance was the most powerful inverse predictor of teachers general job satisfaction and satisfaction with work. ObsessiveCompulsiveness was the most powerful inverse predictor of teachers satisfaction with supervision, and Anxiety was the most powerful inverse predictor of satisfaction with coworkers. Hypothesis five was also accepted which stated that a direct relationship existed between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the WABI. Once again, the factors of Intolerance, Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania directly affected teachers performances beyond the minimum job requirements. Finally, hypothesis six was accepted which stated that self-perception of work addiction corresponded with the WABI. The WABI was found to have a high rate of correct classification, work addict versus non-work addict, when considering ones selfperception of work addiction. Chapter five interprets a summary of the major findings of this research. It also introduces suggestions for future research and an explanation of limitations of the current study. Chapter five concludes with a discussion of the implications for practice and suggestions for future research.

90

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION

This study replicated and validated the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI) using experienced workers who were elementary school teachers. The items of the WABI were analyzed to determine if similar factors would emerge as when the original researcher conducted a similar study on college-aged males. In addition, this study sought to determine if similar items would load on each of the factors that were developed in the original study. The WABI was also studied in relation to a previously validated measure of work addiction, health status, jobs satisfaction, performance beyond ones minimum job requirements, and self-perception of work addiction. In this final chapter, the results of this study are discussed. Each of the six hypotheses is thoroughly reviewed, including the meaning and significance of the findings. A supplementary analysis that was determined to provide additional important findings is also explained in this chapter. Furthermore, limitations of the present study are comprehensively addressed, as well as recommendations for future research and practice. HYPOTHESIS I The factor validity of work addiction and the relationship between work addiction factors will generalize to an adult working population scheme. The factor validity of work addiction and the relationship between work addiction factors of the WABI were able to be generalized to an adult working population scheme, thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis. Not only did identical factors emerge from the exploratory factor analysis, but also similar items loaded onto those factors despite the difference in population between the past research and the current research. Cronbachs alpha coefficients demonstrated moderate internal consistency among items. Therefore, items derived for each factor were similar to one

91

another and consequently were measuring the same constructs. Finally, the correlations between factors determined that the various factors were not measuring the same constructs as one another, or that no multicollinearity existed. Therefore, the factors of the WABI were judged to be independent of one another. Replication of the Factor StructureBehavioral and Attitudinal Items of the WABI Upon examination of the items that loaded onto the first factor in the exploratory factor analysis, it was decided by the researcher to label this factor Anxiety, similar to the previous researcher (Haymon, 1992). Items loading onto this factor addressed concepts involved in anxiety such as worry, stress, restlessness, agitation, and tension. Similar to the original study, the second factor was labeled Obsessive-Compulsiveness due to items that loaded onto that specific factor. Item content pertained to such ideas as obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors, as the chosen name would suggest. The third factor was labeled Mania, which was also consistent with past research. These items were concerned with ones excessive energy and constant, racing thoughts. Moreover, factor four was named Intolerance due to its items that were representative of such. This label was also identical to that used in Haymons research (1992). Items retained on this factor concerned impatience, anger, hostility, aggression, irrationality, and intolerance with oneself and others. Finally, factor five was labeled Self-Doubt and was again in agreement with the naming that occurred during previous research. Items loading onto the Self-Doubt factor were associated with accomplishments not being enough and not being good enough. In general, lack of confidence in oneself and feelings or beliefs pertaining to inadequacy are themes related to the items loading onto this particular factor. Several possible reasons exist for the same factors emerging in the current study and the past study on which the present study is based. First, past research derived from various researchers supports the idea that several of these factors are related to work addiction (Chonko, 1983; Naughton, 1987; Robinson, 1998a; McMillan, ODriscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Although no one theory adequately explains work addiction, a variety of proposed theoretical models correspond to the WABI factors. Another reason for the emergence of identical factors is that these characteristicsanxiety, mania,

92

obsessive-compulsiveness, self-doubt, and intoleranceexist in similar rates among the general population. Therefore, one would expect to find these traits in any working group, or in any population at all, for that matter. This reason would support why these same factors surfaced in Haymons (1992) research despite it being a non-working population. Most likely, however, this explanation is not accurate due to research that supports lower incidences of such disorders as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in the general population than that of the current study (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). It is important to address why items did not identically load onto the five WABI factors in the two studies. Although most items loaded similarly, a few loaded onto different factors or did not load onto any of the five factors. One reason for this finding is that a few of the factors have similar underlying constructs, and therefore some items may be likely to load onto more than one factor. For example, obsessive-compulsiveness has been found in past research to relate to the concept of self-doubt (Beck & Emery, 1985). In turn, a few of the items relating to self-doubt and to the ObsessiveCompulsiveness factor show very similar content. Another possibility for the variation in item loadings is that different populations of individuals were utilized in the two research studies. First, the current population of participants was predominantly comprised of mid-career, professional female teachers, while Haymons (1992) population was made up of undergraduate, college men without professional career employment. It is also important to note that Haymons (1992) participants were primarily from a large state university in the Southeastern region of the United States, while the women in the present study were employed in elementary schools in suburban areas of the Northeast. Similarly, Haymons (1992) population consisted of undergraduate, sophomore-level college students, with an average age of 20, while a majority of the women workers in current study (29.4%) fell into the age range of 51 to 60. In addition, a majority of Haymons (1992) participants were unmarried, while 70.6% of participants involved in the present study were married. Finally, 48% of the participants in the current study reported having children residing with them, while nearly everyone in Haymons (1992) sample did not have any children at all. In most instances,

93

typical college-aged individuals have a vastly different lifestyle than older, married, and employed individuals who are raising children. Many of the individuals in the current study resided primarily in suburban areas, in addition to rural and urban areas, while the participants in Haymons (1992) research, individuals who all attended a university, resided in a college town. Moreover, it is possible that different item loadings occurred because of the simple fact that this particular population, made up of elementary school teachers, was utilized in the present study. Perhaps this population of individuals does not respond to specific items that may pertain to another population of individuals. Nevertheless, item loadings were largely consistent between populations employed in the previous and current research studies. Replication of the Factor Structure with the 58-item WABI An exploratory factor analysis was also performed on the final 58-item version of the WABI that contained both the behavioral and attitudinal items in order to attempt to replicate the factor structure determined by Haymon (1992). It was anticipated that the 58 items would load similarly onto factors as they did when the factor analysis was performed separately on the behavioral and attitudinal items. It was discovered that most of the items loaded onto the same factors during the 58-item factor analysis as they did during the separate factor analyses for the behavior and attitudinal items, thereby demonstrating similarities in the factor structures. A couple of reasons are suggested for why most of the items loaded onto the same factors during both analyses. Of chief importance is that many of the items were alike in content. Even though some questions pertained to ones attitudes and some questions pertained to ones behaviors, all items concerned ones work habits. In addition, most items were unique enough in their wordings that they easily fell onto one particular factor or another. Content was not so similar as to produce unclear loadings on the various factors. Likewise, ideas behind the factors were unique enough to, for the most part, produce strong loadings of the different items. On the other hand, it is important to explore reasons behind the differences in factor loadings. Due to the fact that all items were related to work habits, item content was somewhat analogous. Therefore, it is understandable why some attitudinal and behavioral items may have loaded onto different factors than in the exploratory factor

94

analysis that was conducted prior. Similarly, ideas behind the factors previously determined during the initial factor analyses were somewhat overlapping. For example, obsessive-compulsiveness and self-doubt are both related to ones beliefs about oneself, particularly negative cognitions and over-concern with ones performance. These beliefs often generate associated behaviors that attempt to control or compensate for these negative cognitions. As a result, items pertaining to such beliefs or behaviors could understandably load onto either the Obsessive-Compulsiveness factor or the Self-Doubt factor. Additional Analysis As described in the results section, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed as an auxiliary procedure in order to further explain and expectantly support the current findings. In other words, it was necessary to attempt to confirm the results found by the previous researcher in relation to the WABI factors while using a population of female elementary school teachers as opposed to a population of male college undergraduates. The previous researcher identified specific items that loaded onto the various factors of the WABI. The current research attempted to produce similar results; in other words, the current research hoped to discover that the same items loaded onto the same factors of the WABI while utilizing an alternative population of individuals who might better reflect the phenomenon of work addiction. In order to ascertain such results, the five factors were predetermined and subsequently labeled by the current researcher, based on Haymons (1992) factor structure and labeling, prior to performing the factor analysis. Items were also loaded onto the various factors so that researcher would be able to see how the items loadings compared to those found in the exploratory factor analysis and to those detected by Haymon (1992) during the previously conducted research. It was found that the model created by the confirmatory factor analysis had a satisfactory fit with the data, thereby allowing the measurement model to be deemed acceptable. The loadings of the items onto the various factors were considered moderate. It is important to mention that although the model determined by the confirmatory factor analysis was acceptable, the best model fit was observed in the exploratory factor analysis. Not only did the exploratory model demonstrate stronger loadings, but it also

95

produced factors that housed items that were more similar in nature than those produced during the confirmatory factor analysis. Correlations among the WABI factors were considered to be weak to moderate, showing that the various factors were not measuring the same constructs as one another, or that no multicollinearity existed. Reasons behind why the confirmatory factor analysis produced a poorer model fit than the exploratory factor analysis are similar to the reasons explaining differences in item loadings discussed in the exploratory factor analysis section. Basically, the acceptable fit as opposed to a good fit was most likely a result of the variation in population that was utilized. It is hypothesized that the item loadings varied between the original researchers exploratory factor analysis and the confirmatory factor analysis because of the differences in the populations of the two studies. As described previously, Haymon (1992) studied a population of young, male college students who were not employed as full-time workers. On the other hand, the current study used a population of elementary school teachers who were predominantly middle-aged women and all presently employed full-time in stressful positions of responsibility. In sum, discrepancies are present between the two studies in such features as status of employment, age, gender, geographic region, and lifestyle, to name a few. Perhaps one or more of these aspects contributed to the variations discovered between the results. However, too many differences in the two populations exist in order to be able to specifically pinpoint the causes in the varieties in the item loadings. Nevertheless, it should not be discounted that the results of the confirmatory factor analysis did demonstrate an acceptable fit of the data to the model, signifying excellent promise for the WABI instrument. HYPOTHESIS II A direct relationship will exist between Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). A direct relationship did exist between Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Scales and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI), allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis. In the canonical correlation analysis, the predictor variables of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Intolerance, and Self-Doubt (as determined by the WABI) were correlated with the criterion variables of Enjoyment, Commitment, and Drive. The canonical correlation analysis found a positive, statistically

96

significant multivariate relationship between these predictor and criterion variables. In sum, the final model in the canonical correlation analysis found that the Self-Doubt factor was the most powerful predictor of Enjoyment. Secondly, the factor of ObsessiveCompulsiveness was the most powerful predictor of Commitment. Finally, the Mania factor was the most powerful predictor of Drive. First, the results related to Spence and Robbins (1992) Enjoyment scale will be addressed. The factor of Self-Doubt was the most powerful predictor of the Enjoyment variable. Therefore, an inverse relationship existed between Enjoyment and the factor of Self-Doubt. Elementary school teachers who demonstrated the lowest levels of enjoyment in their jobs revealed the most self-doubt. It is very logical that individuals who displayed the most self-doubt had the lowest levels of enjoyment in their jobs. Items loading onto the Self-Doubt factor are associated with accomplishments not being enough and not being good enough. In general, lack of confidence in oneself and feelings or beliefs pertaining to inadequacy are themes related to the items loading onto this particular factor. An individual who is experiencing such self-doubt may simultaneously be experiencing anxiety and depression and may certainly not enjoy his or her work. Likewise, a person who is constantly ruminating about his or her lack of confidence in himself or herself may not take the time to actually enjoy the work. The sheer fact that the individual is preoccupied with ones doubts about oneself and ones work explains why the individual is not experiencing any enjoyment. He or she may also be attempting to control or overcome these negative thoughts by engaging in excessive work. Because of the excessiveness of the work, the enjoyment may be low. Another finding related to Hypothesis two was that for the variable of Commitment, the WABI factor of Obsessive-Compulsiveness was the most powerful predictor. Elementary school teachers who demonstrated higher levels of obsessivecompulsiveness scored higher on the Commitment scale. As previously described, the characteristic of obsessive-compulsiveness is categorized by self-doubt experienced in the form of obsessions; obsessions are a manifestation of the self-doubt felt by the individual. The individual then attempts to control these obsessions by engaging in compulsions, or ritualistic behaviors. The individual makes an effort to escape from or

97

thwart the feelings of depression and anxiety that are generated by the self-doubt by becoming preoccupied with and compulsively involved in his or her work. In other words, elementary school teachers who have an obsessive-compulsiveness that is related to work are highly committed to work. According to Spence and Robbins (1992), the concept of commitment or involvement is defined as spending a great deal of time working or engaging in work-related behaviors. Elementary school teachers who are obsessed with work and who participate in work-related compulsions are most certainly devoting a great deal of time to their work. Finally, the Mania factor of the WABI was the strongest predictor for the variable of Drive. The elementary school teachers who demonstrated high amounts of mania scored the highest on the Drive scale. As previously described, the concept of mania is characterized by racing thoughts and excessive energy that is experienced by the individual. The excessive energy and accompanying racing thoughts serve the purpose of driving the individual into goal-directed activities (Beck & Emery, 1985). Manic individuals have been found to have difficulty accomplishing any tasks due to their inability to focus on just one task at a time or on time. Their thoughts are often shifting from task to task, and their overabundance of energy leads them to believe that they will be able to accomplish all tasks, although in reality they usually fall well short. Spence and Robbins (1992) define the concept of Drive as working as a result of inner pressures. It is clear how inner pressures, or drive, are able to be highly associated with the concept of mania. As described in the literature review, excessive work is not a result of external demands or pleasure derived from work as much as a result of internal pressures that cause the individual to feel a great deal of distress or guilt about not working. The constructs of both Drive and Mania are defined by ones internal mechanisms that are driving one to work. In the current study, it was determined that inner pressures, or drive, of the elementary school teachers may have caused them to experience a great deal of mania, or excessive energy and racing thoughts which they attempt to channel into their work. Because of their inability to accomplish tasks due to their manic behaviors, work becomes excessive in the hopes of correcting this problem. It is also possible that their work becomes excessive because they do not know how to control their manic symptoms. Moreover, mania is associated with grandiose

98

achievement expectations as well as seeking validation from others through work achievements. The combination of frantic striving and excessive energy production compounds stress and leads persons with mania to physically and psychologically exhaust themselves and their significant others both at work and at home. In sum, evidence provided by the current research substantiates a strong relationship between the WABI factors of Self-Doubt, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania and other research-supported work addiction factors of Enjoyment, Commitment/Involvement, and Drive. These three factors, in particular, stand out as being the strongest traits associated with work addiction. The specific WABI factors of Self-Doubt, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania are highly associated with excessive work as evidenced by the fact that those who possess such characteristics become deeply involved in various activities in their lives (i.e., work) as a result of internal pressures, a lack of self-confidence in their abilities, a lack of contentment with their achievements, and/or extreme expenditures of energy. It is also possible that the factors of Self-Doubt, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania serve as obstacles to achieving a healthy sense of enjoyment, commitment/involvement, and drive. In turn, one may be unable to fully attain balance in his or her life. HYPOTHESIS III An inverse relationship will exist between health status and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). An inverse relationship was found to exist between health status, as measured by the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI), thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis as predicted. More specifically, Anxiety had the largest effect estimates in each model, followed by Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, Self-Doubt, and Intolerance. The factors of SelfDoubt and Intolerance were not found to be statistically significant; however, model 5, which included these factors, was statistically significant. The four factors of Intolerance, Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania were found to be strong predictors of the dependent variable of health status, and the factor Self-Doubt showed very little impact on the dependent variable of health status. Overall, results indicated that the WABI

99

factors of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania most greatly affected elementary teachers overall health statuses. These results can be explained by past research. In general, research has indicated that traits such as anxiety, obsessive-compulsiveness, and mania are associated with poorer health, both physical and mental. Several health conditions, which will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs, are linked to such WABI subscales. Likewise, all three of these subscales are named after psychiatric conditions that are documented by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition-Revised published by the American Psychiatric Association (2000). In other words, these subscales are related to mental health conditions that are able to seriously influence ones life, including ones overall health condition. First, anxiety and its associated feature of worry have been found to be related to serious health problems such as heart disease and high blood pressure (Robinson, 1998a). The term anxiety is often used synonymously with the term stress. As discussed previously, stress has been linked to such physical complaints as ulcers, headaches, lack of sleep, and so forth, which are all components of poor physical health. In addition, those experiencing anxiety may be so preoccupied with it, or the anxiety may interfere with their lives so significantly, that their physical health is compromised. Such individuals may not be able to give sufficient attention to their own wellness due to the fact that they are attempting to survive and control their anxieties. In addition, individuals may attempt to manage their anxieties and find comfort by self-medicating through substance abuse, which is strongly correlated with poor physical and emotional health (Burke, 2000d; Chamberlin, 2001). Likewise, obsessive-compulsiveness is able to be linked to stress; the process of experiencing intrusive, threatening, obsessive thoughts and attempting to control them by engaging in compulsions is stressful to ones body and mind. As discussed previously, stress has been associated with heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, ulcers, and several other health problems (Robinson, 1998a). It is also possible that those who experience characteristics of obsessive-compulsiveness are so focused on controlling their thoughts and behaviors that they neglect other important aspects of themselves such as physical health. Therefore, it is easy to see how a person with such traits experiences

100

poorer general health functioning. It is suggested by existing literature that those who possess an obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with work may be attempting to escape from anxiety and depression, especially related to work performance and work evaluation (Kiechel, 1989). Depression has often been linked to such somatic complaints as a lack of sleep, fatigue, poor appetite, and headaches, to name a few. Moreover, it was also found that mania has been linked to poorer overall health functioning. This finding is able to be explained by several possible reasons. Mania is related to the features of having excessive energy and impulses that are often difficult to control. Those individuals who are experiencing such traits may be prone to a lack of sleep and subsequent periods of extreme exhaustion, which are definitely able to negatively impact ones health. Those who do not receive enough sleep or who are fatigued often are more likely to become sick and may decline in work efficiency. In addition, those who are devoting excessive energy to work-related behaviors may be neglecting their physical health statuses. Mania has also been linked to substance abuse, which is definitely able to be detrimental to ones overall physical health (Ernst & Goldberg, 2004). On the other hand, the factor of Intolerance was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of health status. Associated features of intolerance include a lack of acceptance of others mistakes, irrationality, and hostility. Perhaps the reason for the lack of relationship between intolerance and health status is that those who are intolerant of others actions are more conscious of their own characteristics. They may not rely on others to take care of them; therefore, they take care of themselves. More specifically, these individuals may be more likely to take care of their own health needs due to the fact that they do not have confidence in the abilities of others. Likewise, they may be so critical of acceptable performance that they alienate others and are stuck with caring for themselves. Critical evaluation of their own behaviors may lead to an attempt to go above and beyond what is necessary for proper self-care. Interestingly enough, past research has found that traits associated with intolerance, such as irrationality and hostility, are components of the dominating Type A personality. Having a Type A personality has been linked to such negative health factors as coronary heart disease, strokes, ulcers, and diabetes, to name a few (Robinson, 1998a).

101

Similarly, the factor of Self-Doubt was not found to be a significant predictor of health status. Feelings of inadequacy do not appear to be associated with ones general health. Perhaps those who have more doubt in themselves tend to be more conscious of their health statuses. These individuals often feel as though nothing is ever good enough, and therefore, they may take precautions to prevent health problems. They may also go above and beyond what is necessary for maintaining adequate physical health as a result of their feelings of insufficiency. Another possible reason for such findings is that self-doubt may be compartmentalized to work and have little relationship with other areas in ones life. In other words, just because an individual doubts his or her work-related behaviors does not necessarily mean that he or she would have a lack of confidence in his or her abilities to take care of himself or herself. If self-doubt is considered an isolated trait, only related to work, an individual may not experience any adverse health effects. It was expected that Self-Doubt would be a significant predictor of health status due to its moderate correlation with the WABI subscale of Anxiety (r=.54). Self-doubt is an intrapsychic conflict with oneself, which most likely ties closely to anxiety; both concepts involve trust in oneself as well as the experiencing of negative feelings. However, anxiety involves particular physical processes such as an increase in heart rate, breathing rates, muscle tension, and skin conductance that self-doubt may not involve. Anxiety has also been specifically related to various health concerns in past research, which may explain the difference in findings (Robinson, 1998a). HYPOTHESIS IV An inverse relationship will exist between job satisfaction and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). An inverse relationship did exist between job satisfaction, as measured by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), and the WABI, thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis. The construct of job satisfaction was examined by way of four variables: satisfaction with ones job in general, satisfaction with work, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with coworkers. The canonical correlation analysis found a positive, statistically significant multivariate relationship between these predictor and criterion variables. In sum, the final model in the canonical correlation analysis found the

102

factor of Intolerance to be the most powerful predictor of elementary school teachers general job satisfaction and their satisfaction with their work. On the other hand, the most powerful predictor of teachers satisfaction with supervision was the factor of ObsessiveCompulsiveness. Finally, the most powerful predictor of teachers satisfaction with coworkers was the factor of Anxiety. It was highly expected that variables relating to job satisfaction would demonstrate significant relationships with the various factors of the WABI. More specifically, the items of the WABI inventory examine ones work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the various factors of the WABI are generally considered negative in nature. Therefore, one would predict that negative attitudes and negative behaviors associated with work would affect ones satisfaction with various aspects of ones job. First, it was determined that the factor of Intolerance was the most powerful predictor of elementary school teachers general job satisfaction. Intolerance is simply defined as a lack of tolerance, especially pertaining to the work contributions of others. This work not only includes the job in general, but it also pertains to the mistakes of others (and themselves), others not working as hard as they do, as long as they do, or with as much energy as they do. More intolerant workers expectations are set quite high for themselves as well as for others, which can make for an unpleasant work environment when expectations are not satisfied. Impatience, anger, and temper outbursts are also associated with intolerance (Machlowitz, 1978; Robinson, 1989). The trait of intolerance is pervasive and is not specific to one situation or state. Instead, it pertains to all work situations across the board. Therefore, it is understandable that if an individual is intolerant of his own and others work habits, he or she would be dissatisfied with his or her job in general. With respect to elementary school teachers specifically, a large amount of organization and structure is involved in the planning of their days. This structure includes such tasks as creating lesson plans and scheduling of times of classes, recess, buses, parent conferences, and so forth. Activities and job tasks are entered into a timetable that yields little room for alterations and inefficiency. In turn, if an expectation is not met, a teacher may be prone to become intolerant and impatient. Likewise, elementary school teachers are required to work as a team with other teachers and others

103

staff members as opposed to working only independently. Intolerance could definitely become an issue as teachers are forced to face the inefficient work habits of other individuals. One is certainly able to see how the trait of intolerance could be a predictor of elementary school teachers general job satisfaction. Intolerance was also found to be a strong predictor of elementary school teachers satisfaction with their work, or job tasks. It should be noted that the variables of satisfaction with ones work and the previously discussed variable of overall job satisfaction are closely related and possess overlapping questions among the two Job Descriptive Index (JDI) scales. Reasons for such a relationship between the factor of Intolerance and satisfaction with ones work are quite similar to those cited in relation to overall job satisfaction. Those elementary school teachers who are not tolerant of the performance of themselves and of others would not be likely to be satisfied with the job tasks in which they, themselves, engage. In sum, satisfaction with ones environment is dependent on ones level of tolerance, as dissatisfaction with ones environment is dependent on a persons intolerance level. Furthermore, the current research determined that Obsessive-Compulsiveness was the most powerful predictor of elementary school teachers satisfaction with their supervision. The main idea associated with the factor of Obsessive-Compulsiveness is that individuals attempt to control their obsessions with work by engaging in compulsive behaviors. Not only are compulsions related to work a means of appeasing oneself, but they may also aim to please authority figures, such as supervisors and managers. Perhaps if individuals are so involved with their work to the point of obsessive-compulsiveness, they may neglect or ignore their supervisors, or react defensively or defiantly. More obsessive-compulsive employees are more likely to be reluctant and resistive supervisees who do not feel satisfied with such supervision. Kiechel (1989) suggests that an obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with work may be an attempt by the work addict to escape from such disorders as anxiety and depression. If one is experiencing a disorder such as anxiety or depression, he or she might not respond as well to supervision as someone who is psychiatrically stable. One more explanation for this finding is that an individual with thoughts/behaviors that are totally consumed by work may not have the ability to accept supervision or assimilate the

104

supervision into his or her cognitive schema. In sum, fear and dissatisfaction with authorities is dependent upon ones obsessive-compulsiveness. In addition, findings suggest that the factor of Anxiety was the most powerful predictor of elementary school teachers satisfaction with coworkers. The dimension of anxiety is associated with worry, restlessness, and agitation. Characteristics such as these mentioned may cause teachers to alienate their coworkers. Perhaps they feel discomfort being around others, and/or others feel uncomfortable around them. These individuals may worry about being accepted or fitting in with their peers. It is also indicated that work addicts experience anxiety as a result of being totally consumed by their work, therefore impeding on their ability to develop relationships with coworkers and ultimately have an emotional support system. As a result, when difficulties arise in their lives, they may find themselves even more alone and anxious, thereby perpetuating a cycle (Fassel & Schaef, 1989; Robinson, 1989; Rohrlich, 1981). Dissatisfaction with coworkers may unfortunately be inevitable if more anxious teachers distance themselves from their coworkers both emotionally and physically. In sum, satisfaction and dissatisfaction with ones peers is dependent on ones level of anxiety. HYPOTHESIS V A direct relationship will exist between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). A direct relationship did exist between performance beyond ones minimum job requirements and the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI), thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis as predicted. More specifically, Intolerance had the largest effect estimates in each model, followed by Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Mania, and Self-Doubt. Intolerance was the only factor that was found to be a significant predictor in each of the models, demonstrating its strong impact on the dependent variable of performance beyond ones minimum job requirements. The factor Self-Doubt was not found to be statistically significant; however, model 5, which included this factor, was statistically significant. The four factors of Intolerance, Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania were found to be strong predictors of the dependent variable, and the factor Self-Doubt showed very little impact on the dependent variable.

105

A few reasons are able to explain why Intolerance had the strongest impact on performance beyond ones minimum job requirements. The factor of Intolerance is simply related to a lack of tolerance in general. In other words, intolerance involves ones tendency to take on tasks by oneself and have irrational expectations, hostility, and lack of acceptance for the mistakes of others. Other associated traits include impatience, anger, and temper outbursts (Machlowitz, 1978; Robinson, 1989). Some teachers may not have the tolerance levels to work together with other teachers, or their hostility, anger, and impatience may alienate coworkers. They may also not trust their coworkers to complete the job accurately or up to their standards. Therefore, it is easy to see why Intolerance was found to be highly associated with performance beyond ones minimum job requirements. These reasons cited above would thereby contribute to teachers going above and beyond what is required of them due to the fact that they are taking on the responsibilities of others. In addition, teachers may be reluctant to delegate tasks to coworkers because they hold the expectation that their coworkers would complete the tasks insufficiently. The factors of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania were also found to be moderate predictors of performance beyond ones minimum job requirements, although not as strongly as the factor of Intolerance. As mentioned previously, these three factors are associated with psychiatric diagnoses recognized by the American Psychiatric Association (2000), and their accompanying symptoms would contribute to an individual working beyond what is required by his or her job. For example, individuals experiencing anxiety may experience restlessness that they attempt to control by engaging in more work, or work that is above and beyond what is required. They may worry frequently about their job requirements, and may believe that engaging in excessive work would prevent being reprimanded or judged to be incompetent. Similarly, individuals who experience the symptoms of obsessive-compulsiveness may participate in excessive work (compulsions) in order to control their excessive thoughts regarding self-doubt (obsessions). They may also simply have obsessions with their work and become compulsively absorbed in it. In both cases, extreme amounts of work serve the purpose of attempting to control workers threatening, negative thoughts or obsessions. Furthermore, perfectionism is a trait that is highly associated with

106

obsessive-compulsiveness. Those individuals who are perfectionists are never satisfied with their work or the work of others. To compensate, perfectionists may tend to participate in tasks that go beyond what is required by their jobs. These persons are apt to take work home with them or spend inordinate amounts of time on their work in order to attempt to make their work perfect. They may also become involved in any and all extracurricular activities that are offered in order to have some control over the situations. Moreover, they may take on the responsibilities of others due to their belief that others may not be able to complete the tasks to their standards. Similarly, they may spend excessive amounts of time attempting to correct or modify the work of others because they do not believe that it is accurate or good enough. Unfortunately for these individuals, perfection is never able to be achieved, leaving persons with traits of perfectionism perpetually dissatisfied with their own work/involvement or the work of others. In addition, those experiencing symptoms of Mania possess excessive energy that they may be attempting to channel through their work. This energy serves to drive individuals to continue to participate in work, even beyond what is required by their jobs. Another associated characteristic of mania is ones tendency to experience racing and disconnected thoughts. Therefore, the individual may participate in activities above and beyond what is required by his or her job in order to control these thoughts or at least have these thoughts subside. In addition, a common trait of mania is the grandiose delusion that an individual is able to conquer the world or do anything. These feelings may be carried over into their work settings. In turn, the individuals will become involved in activities above and beyond minimum job requirements because they believe that they would be able to accomplish any task that they attempt. Finally, individuals who are experiencing mania at times have difficulty accomplishing tasks because of their inability to focus on one task at a time. As a result, these individuals may choose to participate in activities that go beyond their minimum job requirements in order to make up for their lack of accomplishment of assigned job tasks. On the other hand, the factor of Self-Doubt demonstrated very little impact on teachers performances beyond minimum job requirements. Interestingly, it was expected that individuals who experience self-doubt would feel compelled to prove their worth to themselves, to their coworkers, and to their supervisors. Their tendency to over-work

107

would be an attempt to mask pain associated with a low self-concept and to compensate for their perceived insufficiencies (Raudsepp, 1988; Pietropinto, 1986). Instead, the finding that there is little association between ones self-doubt and performance beyond minimum job requirements is explained by the idea that those who experience doubt in themselves and their own capabilities would not attempt to take on tasks beyond their minimum job requirements. These individuals feel as though their accomplishments are never enough and are not good enough. Therefore, they may not wish to participate in any activities that could possibly further support their beliefs. Inadequacies could be exposed if they were to participate in any tasks that are considered above and beyond what is required, and should be avoided so as not to set themselves up for failure. In turn, by avoiding extracurricular activities, workers may keep a low profile and only complete what is minimally expected of them. This behavior of not participating in extracurricular activities or tasks that exceed their minimum job requirements also serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, individuals perpetuate their own beliefs of lacking usefulness and doubting their worth by not becoming involved in any extra jobrelated activities. It is important to note that during the background questionnaire, 84% of elementary school teachers reported 10 hours or less of participation in leisure activities per week. Therefore, teachers are involved in work-related activities at least six days per week. While this figure seems too small, it makes sense if many mothering and spousal tasks are construed as work and not leisure activities. This finding serves as further support that elementary school teachers perform beyond their minimum job requirements. HYPOTHESIS VI Self-perception of work addiction will correspond with the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Self-perception of work addiction did, in fact, correspond with the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI), thereby allowing the researcher to accept the alternate hypothesis. Percentage of correct classification by the WABI was 69.5% for work addicted individuals and 73.5% for non-work addicted individuals based on their own self-perceptions. The overall correct classification was 71.3% based on participants scores on the WABI and self-perceived work addiction. In other words, approximately

108

three-fourths of teachers (71.3%) involved in this study accurately perceived themselves to be, or not be, work addicted individuals. This overall rate of correct classification is quite solid. Questions on the WABI appear as though they are tapping into what the overall picture of a work addict looks like. Descriptions of the work addicted and non-work addicted individual were developed using common characteristics of such an individual found in past literature. These descriptions looked to be fitting, as scores on the WABI accurately matched teachers self-perceptions of their own work addiction. A majority of individuals seemed to answer the question pertaining to self-perception openly and honestly as evidenced by the high percentage of correct classification (71.3%). However, approximately 30% of individuals were incorrectly classified by the WABI based on the teachers self-perceptions. One reason for this finding is that perhaps the questions of the WABI need to be tested on another adult working population in order to determine if the same factors emerge. As with the current replication study, different items may load onto the different factors. Further tweaking of these items could improve the rate of correct classification. It is also possible that the teachers involved in this study were not accurate in their identification of work addiction tendencies. They may perceive themselves to be or not to be work addicted when the opposite is really true. In addition, these participants who were incorrectly classified may be consciously attempting to present themselves in certain lights in order to create favorable impressions. Some teachers may be interested in appearing as a work addicted individual so as to present an image of working hard, a characteristic highly valued in todays society. On the other hand, other teachers may wish to appear fun-loving and relaxed, thereby not admitting to their work addict tendencies. These individuals may be attempting to present images of carefree individuals who are not consumed by their work, as traits of work addiction are often considered unsavory characteristics to possess. Similarly, the construct of denial may be influencing the classifications of the teachers. In other words, these individuals may be unconsciously denying/distorting their classifications, thereby affecting the accuracy of the classification. Past research suggests that denial is the ultimate defense mechanism that is used by work addicts to rationalize working excessively and to buffer themselves from negative emotional states such as

109

depression and anxiety (Fassel & Schaef, 1989; Robinson, 1989). In sum, a percentage of the participants may be in denial regarding their addiction to work, and may derive secondary gain from being praised for being especially dedicated workers. The overall rate of correct classification by the WABI in this study is more than adequate. Improvements in this rate may be made by testing the WABI on other populations of individuals, such as those employed in business settings, those involving experienced male workers, and so forth. Descriptions of the work addict could also be improved upon by updating the descriptions with characteristics derived from more recent literature. Limitations of the Current Study A few limitations were discovered while conducting the current study. First, this study was intentionally limited to measuring specific constructs in relation to work addiction. There are many other constructs that have been found in research to be related to work addiction that were not examined in the current study. Second, this study was also purposely restricted to a population of elementary school teachers. As a result, the sample of teachers consisted of mostly female workers in a large suburban area in the Northeastern portion of the United States. It would have been beneficial to survey more male teachers. It is difficult to control for such an issue when examining a population of elementary school teachers due to the fact that the field of elementary education is predominantly comprised of female employees. Third, it would also have been beneficial to survey more divorced employees. Only 8.8% of the participants in the study fell into this category; however, a bigger percentage of the general population is divorced (over 50%). Therefore, the sample of elementary school teachers does not appear to be representative of the general population in terms of divorce. It would be interesting to determine if a relationship exists between work addiction and divorce. Another possible limitation to the current study is the length of the total survey. Because the survey consisted of a number of instruments, the overall time needed to complete the survey was quite long. Similarly, various Likert-type questions involved concentration and a careful approach to the completion of the survey. Although these factors may not have been problematic in the current research due to the volunteer aspect of the study, it could prove to be a limitation in future studies of replication. Furthermore,

110

the face validity of some of the instruments may have affected the response styles of some of the participants. For example, some participants may have chosen to present themselves in a better light due to the fact that they were aware of what the instruments were measuring. On the contrary, some individuals may have desired to appear as super workers. Finally, one last limitation of the present study includes the fact that the survey was administered on two separate occasions, at the end of a school year and at the beginning of a new school year. Teachers may have been experiencing significantly more stress during these time periods. Conversely, teachers may have also been looking forward to their vacation time or may have just been acclimating themselves to the routine of the new school year. Therefore, these individuals may have been feeling less stress than during other times of the school year and/or may not have taken the survey as seriously as they would have during other times of the school year. Specifically pertaining to the results of the study, a few negatives are identified. First of all, a few different items loaded onto the five factors in the present study than onto the five factors in the original study. Likewise, a few of the items loaded onto alternate factors during the exploratory factor analysis involving the 58-item WABI, at which time attitudinal and behavioral items were analyzed simultaneously. These results indicate that further research needs to be conducted on these items. Perhaps different versions of the WABI need to be used for different populations of individuals. For example, the previous study utilized male college students while the present study used experienced public school teachers who are currently employed. It is possible that one version of the WABI could be utilized with college students, or those who are not currently employed, and another version of the WABI could be used for adults who are working. Another possibility is to use different versions of the WABI for males and females. Specifically relating to the items loading onto different factors during the factor analysis of the 58-item WABI, some items may need to be re-worded so as to maintain clarity of their respective contents. It would be necessary to perform research on these suggestions in order to determine their utility.

111

Implications for Future Research Upon completion of the present study, several topics for future research arose. Because of the disproportionality of the current sample, it would beneficial to replicate this study using more heterogeneous populations. Such a study would include more men, a wider variety of occupations, and with greater racial diversity. Similarly, it would be beneficial to recreate this study in order to compare various geographic regions. One would then be able to examine if differences between various parts of the nation exist. Likewise, additional knowledge could be gained in the area of international research and work addiction. Moreover, future research could involve other types of experienced workers. Examining other samples of individuals that are employed in various work settings would broaden the generalizability of these findings. Research concerning comparisons of married to unmarried individuals or those individuals with children to those individuals without children may shed some light onto incidences and effects of work addiction on family environments. Work addiction among varying age ranges may also be addressed in future studies. In addition, it would be interesting to address varying levels of education, including middle school, high school, and university-level teachers. Still another idea for future research includes performing studies involving those who are believed to be at-risk for work addiction. It would be beneficial to determine if the WABI was able to identify those at-risk individuals in addition to those who are already a part of the workforce. If identification such as this is possible, the WABI would be aiding in the prevention aspect of treating individuals. Individuals would be able to take precautions to avoid becoming a work addicted individual as well as be able to recognize symptoms in themselves. As previously described, it would be helpful to determine if different versions of the WABI need to be utilized for different populations of individuals (i.e., working versus non-working, males versus females, etc.). It was also suggested in the preceding section that some WABI items that loaded onto different factors during the two analyses or those that did not demonstrate a strong loading onto a particular factor possibly be examined and reworded for clarity of loading onto the various factors of the WABI.

112

Furthermore, while the current study examined more general health complaints, it would be worthwhile to also examine the relationship between work addiction and more specific health complaints. Similarly, the current study only examined factors of job satisfaction that specifically pertained to teachers. In other words, factors such as satisfaction with pay and potential for advancement were not studied due to the fact that these factors are not relevant issues for elementary school teachers. It would be helpful to examine these factors in a population to which they are applicable. For example, satisfaction with pay and potential for advancement may be related to work addiction in a population of business managers or another profession in which such advantages are possible and more likely to be sought after by employees. Performance beyond ones minimum job requirements is a topic that has yet to be explored by researchers in this particular type of literature. Future researchers may be able to validate an instrument that measures such a concept. Further research could also be performed on the various traits of the WABI and their association with general performance beyond ones minimum job requirements because of the fact the current study focused solely on elementary school teachers. It may be worthwhile to examine such non-required job tasks in other populations of individuals and in other employment settings. Several relationships between work addiction traits (Spence and Robbins, 1992) and the WABI factors were found. More specifically, significant relationships between Self-Doubt and Enjoyment, Obsessive-Compulsiveness and Commitment, and Mania and Drive were discovered. It would be useful to further explore these relationships in future research as they are all important to the concept of work addiction. Similarly, research comparing other standardized psychological instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 to the WABI may prove to be useful, especially due to the overlapping scales (Butcher, Graham, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, Dahlstrom, & Kaemmer, 2001). In addition, it is a concern that research involving employees frequently entails taking time away from work in order to participate in the studies; true work addicts may not be willing to do so. These individuals may not feel that they have the time to devote to such a study that is not at all related to their job requirements, especially such as a

113

study that requires more than a few minutes to participate. Therefore, although most likely not an issue for the current research because of the volunteer nature of the study, a replicated study may not include as many true work addicts as are actually in the population. The topic of work addiction could be best studied in environments where employees are not required to take time away from their work in order to complete survey instruments. For example, a survey could be administered as part of ones job requirements or could be given during a luncheon or other mandatory meeting. In that way, many individuals may not as often feel as though they are neglecting their typical required job tasks. Finally, bias is introduced by utilizing self-report instruments in work addiction studies. Therefore, it would be beneficial to perform research that also involves family, co-worker, and supervisor ratings. In this way, researchers would be able to gain an outside perspective on the concept of work addiction. Also, symptoms that are perhaps not recognized or denied by work addicts could be identified by significant others. Moreover, researchers would be able to extend their research to further study the effects of work addiction on the family and work environments, or more specifically, on the workers spouse, children, home environment, supervisor, coworkers, and work atmosphere (i.e., tense, relaxed, etc.). Implications for Practice Several implications for practice are also evident. As mentioned previously, the topic of work addiction is a concept that has commonly been overlooked in treatment settings. This is often the case due to the fact that working hard is considered a positive quality that one possesses and is therefore rewarded. For example, raises are given or special titles are awarded to those who engage in excessive work. If nothing else, employers will now be able to identify work addicts and their associated underlying traits using the WABI instrument. Perhaps this instrument could be incorporated into Human Resource Development practices in order to recognize and treat employees. It is hoped that the current research will increase awareness regarding the issue as well as attention to symptoms of work addiction during treatment. Similarly, it is anticipated that practitioners will also become more attentive to related psychological conditions such as mania (and associated mood disorders) and

114

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Not only is it important for practitioners to recognize mental health disorders, but it is also important for them to recognize traits associated with work addiction. For example, intolerance was found to be a significant predictor of performance beyond ones minimum job requirements. By recognizing such a characteristic, practitioners may be able to prevent or control tendencies to work above and beyond what is required by his or her job/position. Conversely, mental health professionals such as vocational rehabilitation specialists or outpatient therapists may be able to identify such negative traits in order to prevent job dissatisfaction from occurring. Additionally, mental health professionals as well as physicians will be more conscious of medical problems associated with work addiction. Due to the fact that anxiety, obsessive-compulsiveness, and mania were found to be significant predictors of general health status, mental health professionals may be able to prevent health problems from occurring in their clients or properly manage health problems through patient education as a result of recognizing these symptoms. Treatment may also be viewed from a more holistic approach, causing all involved professionals to be able to work more collaboratively as they may become aware of the overlapping roles that they play pertaining to the issue of work addiction. In the same way that other mental illnesses are addressed, a team approach could be utilized by professionals in order to treat work addiction. Furthermore, only certain scales of the WABI were predictors of certain variables. For example, the WABI factors of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, and Mania were found to be predictors of ones general health status while the factors of Intolerance and Self-Doubt were not found to be predictors of health status. Therefore, those professionals specifically concerned with ones health, particularly physical, would use the corresponding scales to gain more information in this area. It is recommended that mental health professionals only utilize those specific scales that pertain to the issue at hand in order to work in an efficient manner. On a related note, performance beyond ones minimum job requirements was found to be associated with work addiction, particularly in the area of intolerance. It is

115

suggested that measuring ones performance beyond ones minimum job requirements could serve as a screening tool used to determine if the WABI is necessary. It is imperative that employers, and in this case school systems, realize the significance of the current results. Work addiction does, in fact, exist among elementary school teachers, despite popular belief and the lack of focus that has been placed on this population. Not only does this problem exist, but it also is associated with serious outcomes such as health difficulties, job dissatisfaction, and much more. It is hoped that the results of this study will be taken into consideration and utilized to improve both teacher and school practices. Not only will improving such practices make for healthier and happier teachers, but it will also benefit the students enrolled in the educational systems throughout the world. Rounding out this brief presentation on implications for practice are two suggestions related to professional teacher preparation. The first suggestion is to recommend that university-based personnel/preparation faculty give considerable concern to selecting students, especially graduate students, who are healthy in their work addiction profiles. Such individuals would seemingly be the most enduring, high-vitality professionals who would be able to build balance into their lives and be role models of wellness for others. Second, it is recommended that educators, both in university degree programs and continuing education activities, emphasize coping with addictive tendencies in efforts to help others and themselves.

116

APPENDIX A LETTER TO PRINCIPALS

Florida State UNIVERSITY


Tallahassee, Florida

32306-4453
Voice: FAX: (850) 644-4592 (850) 644-8776

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems College of Education 307 Stone Building

Dear Principal, I am a graduate student under the direction of Professor William English in the College of Education at the Florida State University. I am conducting a research study to investigate the associations between personality and work-related behaviors among elementary school teachers. I am requesting your assistance in the recruitment of elementary school teachers. Their participation will involve filling out paper and pencil questionnaires during their preparatory periods. The total time commitment will be about 45 minutes. Their participation in this study is voluntary, and if they choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. The questionnaires are anonymous. The results of the research study may be published, but their names will not be used. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at (850) 6444592, or my supervisor, Dr. William English, at (850) 644-2227. If the teachers do choose to participate, a consent form containing a more detailed description of the study will be included. I hope that you will be able to aid me in my endeavors. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, Meredith Senholzi, M.S., NCC Doctoral Candidate

117

APPENDIX B LETTER OF CONSENT

Florida State UNIVERSITY


Tallahassee, Florida

32306-4453
Voice: FAX: (850) 644-4592 (850) 644-8776

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems College of Education 307 Stone Building

Dear Teacher, My name is Meredith Senholzi, M.S., and I am a doctoral candidate in the Combined Doctoral Program in Counseling Psychology and School Psychology at the Florida State University who is studying under the direction of Professor William English in the College of Education. I am conducting a research study to investigate the associations between personality and work-related behaviors among elementary school teachers entitled, The Validation and Generalization of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory. This effort represents my doctoral dissertation. I am requesting your participation, which will involve filling out seven paper and pencil questionnaires, including a demographic survey, two surveys regarding your work style, one survey inquiring about your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with work, one survey about your general physical and mental health, one survey pertaining to your job satisfaction, and one survey relating to your participation in extracurricular activities. The responses will be recorded on a scantron sheet, and the total time commitment will be about 45 minutes. There are no known risks associated with participating in this study. However, I will be available to talk with you about any emotional discomfort that you may experience while participating. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you are able to stop your participation at any time that you wish with no prejudice or penalty. If you do choose to participate, information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. Only group findings will be reported in this dissertation or in any other subsequent publications; no individual responses will be reported. Likewise, your name will not appear on any of the results. Finally, your own supervisors, including principals and superintendents, will not have access to your responses. I understand that there may be benefits for participating in this research project. You may be able to increase your awareness regarding your own personality and style of work. You will also be contributing to the body of knowledge in the fields of counseling psychology and education. Lastly, you will be able to receive a summary of the findings, or of your individual results, if you request one.

118

You may contact me, Meredith Senholzi, at the Florida State University, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, 307 Stone Building, (850) 644-4592, or my supervisor, Dr. William English, at (850) 644-2227, for answers to questions about this research, your rights, or any risks, if encountered. You are also welcome to contact the Florida State Universitys Human Subjects Committee at (850) 644-8633 if you have any additional questions. Return of the questionnaires will be considered your consent to participate. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Meredith A. Senholzi, M.S., NCC

119

The Validation and Generalization of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory: Individual Results Request If you are interested in receiving your own individual results, please provide the following information: Name: _________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Email Address: __________________________________________________________ Number printed on your scantron sheet in the section labeled identification number: ________________________

120

APPENDIX C HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL LETTER

121

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Revised). Washington, DC: Author. Aziz, S. (2002). A study of workaholism: Toward clearing up the confusion. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University. Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., et al. (1997). Users manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 Revision) and the Job in General (JIG) Scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University. Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. New York: Basic Books. Billeter, B. (1981, May 26). Workaholics are hurting the company and themselves, Charlotte Observer, p. 5C. Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020. Bonebright, C. A. (2001). The relationship of workaholism with stress, burnout, and productivity. Unpublished Thesis. Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D., & Ankenmann, R. (2000). The relationship of workaholism and work-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. The Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 469-477. Borg, M. G., & Falzon, J. M. (1989). Sources of teacher stress in Maltese primary schools. Research in Education, 46, 1-15. Brown, M. & Ralph, S. (1992). Towards the identification of stress in teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 49-67. Burke, R. J. (2001). Workaholism components, job satisfaction, and career progress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(11), 2339-2356.

122

Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism among women managers: Personal and workplace correlates. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 52-534. Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219-220. Burke, R. J. (2000c). Workaholism and extra-work satisfaction. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7(4), 352-364. Burke, R. J. (2000d). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical wellbeing consequences. Stress Medicine, 16: 11-16. Burke, R. J. (1999a). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41(5/6), 333-345. Burke, R. J. (1999b). Workaholism in organizations: Measurement validation and replication. International Journal of Stress Management, 6(1), 45-55. Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of Spence and Robbins measures of workaholsim components. Psychological Reports, 91, 1098-1104. Burns, D. (1980, November). The perfectionists script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34-57. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2) manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (rev. ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational Research journal, 31, 645-673. Cantarow, E. (1979). Women workaholics. Mother Jones, 6, 56. Carroll, J. J., & Robinson, B. E. (1999, April). Depression and parentification among adults as related to parental workaholism and alcoholism. Paper presented at the American Counseling Associations Annual Conference, San Diego, CA. Chamberlin, C. M. (2001). Workaholism, health, and self-acceptance. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Ball State University. Chase, N. (1999). Burdened children: Theory, research, and treatment of parentification. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

123

Chonko, L. B. (1983). Job involvement as obsession-compulsion: Some preliminary empirical findings. Psychological Reports, 53, 1191-1197. Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., Schroeder, M. L., & Irish, S. L. (1996). Convergence of two systems for assessing specific traits of personality disorder. Psychological Assessment, 8, 294-303. Clark, L. A., McEwen, J. L., Collard, L. M., & Hickok, L. G. (1993). Symptoms and traits of personality disorder: Two new methods in their assessment. Psychological Assessment, 5, 81-91. Cohen, A. (1995). An examination of the relationships between work commitment and nonwork domains. Human Relations, 48, 239-263. Cooper, C. L. (1995). Life at the chalkface: Identifying and measuring teachers stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 69-71. Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. M. (1993). A review and integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621-656. Costa, P. T., & McRae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55, 299-316. Ernst, Carrie L., & Goldberg, Joseph F. (2004). Clinical features related to age at onset in bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82(1), 21-27. Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Addiction, personality and motivation. Human Psychopharmacology, 12, S79-S87. Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high cost of workaholism, the rewards of recovery. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins. Fassel, D., & Schaef, A. (1989, January). The high cost of workaholism. Business and Health, pp. 38-42. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K., & OBrien, S. (1991). Perfectionism and learned resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 61-68. Flowers, C., Robinson, B. E., & Carroll, J. J. (2000). Criterion-related validity of the marital disaffection scale as a measure of marital estrangement. Psychological Reports, 86, 1101-1103.

124

Fogus, J. L. (1998). Relationships among flow, work addiction, and health. Unpublished masters thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro. Friedman, I. A. (1991). High- and low-burnout schools: School culture aspects of teacher burnout. Studies in Educational Management and Organization, 17, 155-175. Fry, P. S. (1995). Perfectionism, humor and optimism as moderators of health outcomes and determinants of coping styles in women executives. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121, 211-245. Goodman, A. (1990). Addiction: Definition and implications. British Journal of Addiction, 85(11), 1403-1408. Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Konarski, R. (1997). The impact of burnout in teachers: Examination of a model. Work & Stress, 11, 267-278. Haraguchi, M., Tsuda, A., & Ozeki, Y. (1991). The current status of stress among information-related industry workers. In M. Tanaka & A. Tsuda (Eds.), Lespirit daujourdhui Number 290: Stress and karoshi (pp. 75-86). Tokoy: Shibundo. Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291-319. Haymon, S. (1992). The relationship of work addiction and depression, anxiety, and anger in college males. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98-101. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 276-280. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Weber, C. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and suicide ideation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 439-460. Hodge, G. M., Jupp, J. J., & Taylor, A. J. (1994). Work stress distress and burnout in music and mathematics teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 65-76. Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94-103. Homer, J. B. (1985). Worker burnout: A dynamic model with implications for prevention and control. System Dynamics Review, 1(1), 42-62.

125

Isaacson, L. E., & Brown, D. (1997). Career information, career counseling, and career development (6th ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Jones, R., & Wells, M. (1996). An empirical study of parentification and personality. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 145-152. Jurkovic, G. (1997). Lost childhood: The plight of the parentified child. New York: Brunner-Mazel. Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 8(2), 129-145. 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(4), 192-203. Kiechel, W., III. (1989, August 14). Workaholics anonymous. Fortune, pp. 117-118. Kiechel, W., III. (1989, April). The workaholic generation. Fortune, 119, 50-62. Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Kittler-Adkins, K., & Parker, W. (1996). Perfectionism and suicidal preoccupation. Journal of Personality, 64, 532-543. Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 38(3), 37-40. Landis-Kleine, C., Foley, L. A., Nall, L., Padgett, P., & Walters-Palmer, L. (1995). Attitudes toward marriage and divorce held by young adults. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 23(3/4), 63-73. Lowenstein, L. F. (1991). Teacher stress leading to burnout: Its prevention and cure. Education Today, 41, 12-16. Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Macholwitz, M. (1978). Determining the effects of workaholism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 7915855. (University of Microfilms International) Malnar, K. A. (1996). Personal and professional balance among female superintendents in Michigans public schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Eastern Michigan University.

126

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113 Maslach, C., & Leiter, P. M. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., ODriscoll, 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., ODriscoll, M. P., Marsh, N. V., & Brady, E. C. (2001). Understanding workaholism: Data synthesis, theoretical critique, and future design strategies. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 69-91. MOW International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of work: An international view. London: Academic Press. 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(2), 93-111. Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career counseling and research. The Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180-187. Navarrette, S. (1998). An empirical study of adult children of workaholics: Psychological functioning and intergenerational transmission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California Graduate Institute. Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addictions. New York, NY: World. Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14(2), 150-163. Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or Pathology? Group and Organization Management, 26(3), 369-393. Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 20, 89-96. Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70-84.

127

Posig, M., & Kickul, J. (2003). Extending our understanding of burnout: Test of an integrated model in nonservice occupations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(1), 3-19. Pretorious, T. B. (1994). Using the Maslach Burnout Inventory to assess educators burnout at a university in South Africa. Psychological Reports, 75, 771-777. Ragheb, M. & Tate, R. (1993). A behavioral model of leisure based on leisure attitude, motivation, and satisfaction. Leisure Studies, 12, 61-70. Raudsepp, E. (1988, March 28). Are you obsessed with your work? Chemical Engineering, pp 65-66. Robinson, B. E. (2000a). Adult children of workaholics: Clinical and empirical research with implications for family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11(3), 15-26. Robinson, B. E. (2000b). Workaholism: Bridging the gap between workplace, sociocultural, and family research. Journal of Employment Counseling, 37, 31-47. Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and children and the clinician who treat them. New York, NY: NYU Press. Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical implications for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 35, 260-268. Robinson, B. E. (1998c). The Workaholic family: A clinical perspective. The American Journal of Family Thearpy, 26, 65-75. Robinson, B. E. (1997). Work addiction: Implications for EAP counseling and research. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 12, 1-13. Robinson, B. E. (1996a). Concurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 79, 1313-1314. Robinson, B. E. (1996b). Relationship between work addiction and family functioning: Clinical implications for marriage and family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 7, 13-29. Robinson, B. E. (1996c). The psychosocial and familial dimensions of work addiction: Preliminary perspectives and hypotheses. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 447-451. Robinson, B. E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.

128

Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of workaholics: self-concept, anxiety, depression, and locus of control. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 223-238. Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1997). Risk of addiction to work and family functioning. Psychological Reports, 81, 91-95. Rohrich, J. (1981, January). A psychiatrist analyzes the work addicts. Across the Board, pp. 49-60. Rohrlich, J. B. (1981). The dynamics or work addiction. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 18, 147-156. Ross, S. R., & Krukowski, R. A. (2002). The imposter phenomenon and maladaptive personality: Type and trait characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 477-484. Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The Addictive Organization. San Francisco, CA: Harper Row. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453. Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York: Basic Books. Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50(3), 287-314. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. London: Penguin. Smith, M., & Bourke, S. (1992). Teachers stress: Examining a model based on contexts, workloads, and satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 31-46. Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Rhodewalt, F., & Poulton, J. L. (1989). Optimism, neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: An alternative interpretation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 640-648. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160-178. Travers, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). Mental ill health, job satisfaction, alcohol consumption, and intention to leave in the teaching profession. Work and Stress, 7, 203-220. Travers, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the teaching profession. London: Routledge.

129

Uehata, T. (1993). Karoshi-no kenkyu [Research on karoshi]. Toko, Japan: Nihon Planning Center. Van Horn, J. E., Schaufeli, W. B., Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (1997). A CanadianDutch comparison of teachers burnout. Psychological Reports, 81, 371-382. Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and burnout among special education: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 31, 325-346. Wittenberg, K. J., & Norcross, J. C. (2001). Practitioner perfectionism: Relationship to ambiguity tolerance and work satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(12), 1543-1550. Wolpin, J. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Is job satisfaction an antecedent or a consequence of psychological burnout? Human Research, 44, 193-209. World Health Organization. (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference. Official Records of the World Health Organization, 2, 100.

130

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D., Counseling Psychology and Human Systems, Florida State University APA Accredited M.S., Counseling Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi CACREP Accredited B.A., Psychology and Linguistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CLINICAL EXPERIENCE Psychology Intern September 2004-August 2005 Coatesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Coatesville, Pennsylvania APA Accredited Predoctoral Internship Site Providing individual counseling services; leading therapy groups; performing psychological and neuropsychological assessments; administering assessments relating to dementia screening; composing psychological and neuropsychological reports; conducting hypnosis; researching various topics relating to clients medical and psychological conditions; attending a variety of training sessions. Rotations: Geropsychology, Neuropsychology I, Inpatient Psychiatry, Neuropsychology II, & Biofeedback. Training Director: Edward Moon, Psy.D. Certified Counselor January 2002-August 2004 Senior Outreach Counseling Services, Tallahassee, Florida Providing counseling services for elderly individuals and their caregivers; performing neuro-psychological assessments; co-leading therapy groups; conducting assessments of functionality; providing at-home services including residences and assisted living facilities; composing psychological reports; developing individualized care plans; performing research on various topics relating to clients medical and psychological problems; website design and development. Supervisors: Judith Inman, Ph.D. & Deborah Ebener, Ph.D. 2005 2001 1999

131

Psychological Evaluator May 2003-August 2004 Multidisciplinary Center, Florida State University Administering psychoeducational, behavioral, and emotional evaluations to preschoolers, school-age children, and adolescents in order to assess for learning disabilities and other psychological disorders; scoring of assessments and development of diagnoses; composing psychological reports; participating in staffings and weekly individual supervision; working collaboratively with fellow trainees and supervisor to determine diagnoses and treatment recommendations. Supervisor: Beverly Atkeson, Ph.D. Psychological Evaluator May 2003-February 2004 Adult Learning Evaluation Center, Florida State University Administering psychoeducational evaluations to college students in order to assess for learning disabilities; scoring of instruments and development of diagnoses; composing psychological reports; providing assessment feedback sessions to clients; participating in weekly individual supervision; working collaboratively with fellow trainees as well as supervisor in order to determine diagnoses and treatment recommendations. Supervisors: Frances Prevatt, Ph.D. & Carol Painter, Ph.D. Psychological Evaluator May 2003-December 2003 Department of Juvenile Justice, Tallahassee, Florida Administering comprehensive psychological evaluations to juvenile delinquents for the determination of placement and services; scoring of measures and development of diagnoses; composing psychological reports; participating in staffings and weekly individual supervision. Supervisor: Nancy Wonder, Ph.D. Advanced Individual Career Counseling Practicum II January 2003-May 2003 Curricular-Career Information Service, Florida State University Provided individual counseling services to students and adults from the community; maintained a regular individual career counseling caseload utilizing Individual Career Learning Plans; worked at the Career Advisor desk to assess the needs of incoming clients; utilized various psychological and career instruments; participated in weekly individual and group supervision. Supervisor: Gary Peterson, Ph.D. Advanced Individual Career Counseling Practicum I August 2002-December 2002 Curricular-Career Information Service, Florida State University Provided individual counseling services to students and adults from the community; maintained a regular individual career counseling caseload utilizing Individual Career Learning Plans; worked at the Career Advisor desk to assess the needs of incoming clients; utilized various psychological and career instruments; participated in weekly individual and group supervision. Supervisor: James Sampson, Ph.D.

132

Psychological Evaluator May 2002-May 2003 Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida Administered various assessments to inpatient and outpatient children and adults of all ages; provided testing to outpatient adults with possible memory disorders; scored all assessments and developed diagnoses; utilized a dictation machine to aid in reporting of protocols; composed psychological reports; participated in staffings and weekly individual and group supervision. Supervisor: Larry Kubiak, Ph.D. Masters Level Field Internship May 2001-August 2001 Pine Belt Mental Healthcare Resources, Columbia, Mississippi Provided outpatient services including individual, family, and couples counseling at a rural community mental health center; conducted pre-screening interviews; completed weekly client intakes and composed reports; developed and implemented treatment plans; attended weekly adult and child staffings and weekly group and individual supervision meetings; attended several in-service training sessions; psychosocial rehabilitation with seriously mentally ill clients. Supervisors: Sidne Buelow, Ph.D. & Aimee Cotton, M.S. Outpatient Counseling Practicum Level II August 2000-December 2000 Community Counseling and Assessment Clinic, University of Southern Mississippi Provided therapy to students, couples, and adults; conducted client intakes and composed reports; scored and interpreted the results of the SCL-90-R for each client intake; formulated bi-weekly case conceptualizations and presented formulations in class; participated in weekly group and individual supervision; developed advanced skills in counseling, intervention, treatment planning, and integration of theory and practice. Supervisor: George Buelow, Ph.D. Group Counseling Practicum August 2000-December 2000 Youth Challenge Program, University of Southern Mississippi Participated in supervised training in facilitation of group therapy; co-facilitated a growth group for at-risk adolescent boys; utilized Reality Therapy/Choice Theory to model and teach responsibility and personal choice for individual behavior; attended weekly group supervision; created weekly case notes. Supervisor: William Wagner, Ph.D. Outpatient Counseling Practicum Level I January 2000-May 2000 Community Counseling and Assessment Clinic, University of Southern Mississippi Conducted individual counseling sessions with university students; formulated cases conceptualizations; addressed various tools of assessment and treatment interventions; acquired knowledge pertaining to competent utilization of supervision; participated in weekly individual and group supervision. Supervisor: Catherine Campbell, Ph.D.

133

Habilitation Technician August 1998-August 1999 Keston Care, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina Worked individually with physically and mentally disabled children; provided children and parents with respite care and community inclusion; collaborated with case managers regarding treatment plans; met regularly with supervisors for individual supervision. Supervisor: Anita Jones, M.S., LPC SUPERVISION EXPERIENCE Practicum Supervisor January 2003-May 2003 Department of Educational Psychology, Florida State University Supervised two Masters-level practicum students; met weekly to discuss current cases; reviewed videotapes weekly and provided feedback to students; evaluated students. Supervisor: Gary Peterson, Ph.D. WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, AND SPECIAL TRAINING ATTENDED EMDR Training I & II, Coatesville, PA March 2005/October 2004 Rorschach Inkblot Test Seminar, Tallahassee, FL May 2003 Grantsmanship Seminar, Tallahassee, FL November 2002 Taking Action for a Tobacco-Free Mississippi Seminar, Biloxi, MS October 2000 CERTIFICATIONS Human Resource Development Certificate National Certified Counselor RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Dissertation Title: Validation and Generalization of the Work Attitudes and Behaviors Inventory (WABI). Chair: R. William English, Ph.D. Masters Thesis Equivalency: The relationship between personality and workaholism amongcollege students. Responsibilities included: Literature search; preparation of documents for Human Subjects Committee; data collection including administration of Multidimensional Personality Inventory and the Work Addiction Risk Test; analysis of data using SPSS; interpretation of results; development of a thesis to be submitted for publication. Chair: R. William English, Ph.D. PUBLICATIONS Hirshman, E., Wells, E., Wierman, M. E., Anderson, B., Butler, A., Senholzi, M., & Fisher, J. (2003). The effects of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) on recognition memory decision processes and discrimination in post-menopausal women. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(1), 125-134. September 2003 September 2001-present

134

PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS Wooley-Brown, C., Rollin, S., Rippner, J., Oldham, S., Solomon, S., Holland, J., Senholzi, M., Giovingo, L. (2002). Defining structure and achieving charter school accountability. Paper presented at the National Charter Schools Clearinghouse Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. Senholzi, M. A. (2000). The influence of eating breakfast versus not eating breakfast on stress levels. Symposium presentation at the 2000 Mississippi Psychological Association Convention in Biloxi, Mississippi. TEACHING EXPERIENCE Teaching Assistant May 2002-August 2002 Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Florida State University Course: Adult Learning and Development Instructor August 2001-April 2002 Department of Human Services and Studies, Florida State University Course: Communications and Human Relations Teaching Assistant May 2000-August 2000 Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi Course: Pre-Counseling Practicum for School and College Counselors ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTATION EXPERIENCE Welfare Transition Program Worker January 2002-May 2002 Big Bend Workforce Center, Tallahassee, Florida Served as a consultant to a welfare transition program; Evaluated the success of client transitions into the workforce; administered a Work Readiness Assurance Plan Checklist to assess clients levels of work readiness/retention success; aided clients in job retention success; tracked success rates and services provided. Supervisor: Joe Basiri, Welfare Transition Supervisor GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT EXPERIENCE Research and Program Development Assistant August 2002-May 2003 Student Affairs Research Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, Florida State University Developed and conducted surveys to assess program content, needs, and outcomes; held focus group meetings; served as a member of various grant writing teams; established working relationships with university committees and departments; aided in website design. Supervisor: Evelyn Ploumis-Devick, Ph.D.

135

Graduate Assistant February 2002-August 2002 Charter School Accountability Center Department of Human Services and Studies, Florida State University Provided Florida charter schools with information on fiscal and auditing concerns, help in renewal and new charter school applications, and assistance with tracking of student performance; developed and maintained a database of demographic information of all Florida charter schools; assisted with the planning and implementation of charter school workshops. Supervisor: Stephen Rollin, Ed.D. SCHOLARSHIPS AND HONORS Intern Representative for the Coatesville VAMC Internship Program (2004-2005) The Severiano Jorge Scholarship (2003-2005) The Florida State University Dissertation Grant (2004) The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi (2001) Psi Chi, The National Honor Society for Psychology (2001) June Comola Student Scholarship (2000) Finalist for the Pine Belt Mental Healthcare Resources Scholarship (2000) Gamma Beta Phi National Honor Society (2000) PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Florida Psychological Association April 2003-present American Psychological Association October 2002-present Florida Association of School Psychologists September 2001-present Mississippi Licensed Professional Counselors Association November 2000-August 2001 Mississippi Association for Masters Students in Psychology August 2000-August 2001 Mississippi Psychological Association August 1999-August 2001 Mississippi Counseling Association August 1999-August 2001

136