WORKAHOLISM AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING: A PROFILE OF FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS, PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES, AND RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS

Bryan E. Robinson

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the relationship between workaholism and family functioning and the psychological outcomes of family members. A profile of the workaholic family is presented, along with an argument for family scientists and practitioners to pay more attention to this neglected area of family life. Considerations for how to address the need in family research and practice also are presented.
KEY WORDS: work; workaholism; family functioning; family relationships.

Distinctions among various family groups have been studied in the family literature over the years. Theoretical and research issues specific to the unique qualities and needs of various family configurations have been applied to alcoholic families (Wegscheider, 1980), celebrity families (Mitchell & Cronson, 1987), Black families (Lewis & Looney, 1983), stepfamilies (Visher & Visher, 1978), gay and lesbian families (Baptiste, 1987; Barret & Robinson, 2000), and most recently, workaholic families (Robinson, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). The adult children syndrome was launched in 1983 with the best-selling book, Adult Children of Alcoholics (Woititz, 1983), which is credited with spurning a series of other books and research studies examining other legacies of adult children such as adult children of divorce (Wallerstein, 1985) and adult children of workaholics (Robinson, 2000a; Robinson & Kelley, 1998; Carroll & Robinson, 2000).

Bryan E. Robinson, PhD, is Professor, Department of Counseling, Special Education and Child Development, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.
Contemporary Family Therapy 23(1), March 2001 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

123

124 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

Despite the fact that workaholism has been cited as the bestdressed family problem of the twentieth century, the subject has been downplayed or ignored in the family literature, presumably because of cultural maxims that extol its positive aspects while failing to profile the negative aspects of high-performance and workaholism on the family system (Robinson & Chase, 2001). Instead of helping workaholics deal with workaholism, well-meaning clinicians often view the condition as an insignificant factor in family dynamics (Robinson, 2000b). This oversight is supported by the fact that workaholism has not been accepted into the official psychological nomenclature (Pietropinto, 1986). The present paper examines the impact of workaholism on the family system, profiling the often hidden issues that affect family members. An argument is made for family researchers and family practitioners to pay more attention to this neglected and essential area of study and recommendations for how to address the subject are presented.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON WORKAHOLIC FAMILIES

The term workaholic appeared in the published literature more than 30 years ago (Oates, 1968, 1971). Since that time, there have been various definitions of workaholism but two predominant definitions have withstood the rigors of scientific investigation and psychometric utility. Spence and Robbins (1992) define the workaholic as someone who is highly involved in their work, feels driven to work because of an inner compulsion rather than by external demands, and experiences low work enjoyment. Their scales identify three workaholic patterns: workaholics, work enthusiasts, and enthusiastic workaholics. Robinson (1999) operationalized workaholism through the development of the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART), a psychometrically-sound instrument used by clinicians and researchers to identify individuals who meet the criteria for workaholism. A discriminant analysis of the WART suggests that workaholism is a multi-dimensional construct characterized by (a) Compulsive Tendencies, (b) Inability to Control Work Habits, (c) Impaired Communication/Self-Absorption, (d) Inability to Delegate, and (e) Impaired Self-Worth (Flowers & Robinson, 2001). Robinson (1998a) defines workaholism as a compulsive need to workregardless of external pressuresthat manifests itself through self-imposed demands, an inability to regulate work habits, and an overindulgence in

125 BRYAN E. ROBINSON

work to the exclusion of most other life activities (p. 7). This definition of workaholism guides the conceptual framework of this paper. (For a detailed discussion of the psychometric properties of the WART, see Robinson, 1998a.) When workaholism has been studied, the focus has been mainly on its implications for the workplace, work productivity, and career counseling and development (e.g., Matthews & Halbrook, 1990; Naughton, 1987; Porter, 1996, 1998). Still, even career and organizational theorists have devoted little attention to the concept of workaholism, despite its having been identified as an increasingly important factor in the work careers of many individuals (Naughton, 1987; Porter, 1996). In terms of career development, Weinberg and Mauksch (1991) discovered that patterns of interaction to which people become accustomed in their families of origin often play unacknowledged roles in their lives and can contribute to unwanted pressures and job stresses. Matthews and Halbrook (1990) suggested that adults from dysfunctional families of origin seek out high-stress jobs where work addiction is rampant because in their families of origin they develop a high tolerance for stressful and chaotic conditions. Because the workplace is often a replication of the family of origin, it is a setting where unresolved issues are reenacted. The first study to directly investigate the relationship between workaholism and family functioning provided evidence suggesting that work addiction can lead to brittle family relationships, contribute to marital conflict, and create dysfunction within the family (Robinson & Post, 1995, 1997). The investigators administered a battery of instruments to 107 subjects from Workaholics Anonymous across the United States and Canada. Workaholism (i.e., scores on the WART) was significantly correlated with current family functioning (i.e., scores on the Family Assessment Device). The higher the workaholism scores, the higher the degree of perceived dysfunction in ones current family. Greater workaholism was related to less effective problem solving, lower communication, less clearly established family roles, fewer affective responses, less affective involvement, and lower general functioning in families established in adulthood. Based on the WART scores, three groups were established from the sample: Low, Medium, and High-risk for workaholism. Individuals in the High-risk group were more likely to rate their families as having problems in communication or in the exchange of information among family members than those in the Low- or Medium-risk categories. They were more likely to rate

126 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

their families as having less clearly defined family roles and believed their families were less likely to have established behavior patterns for handling repetitive family functions than those in the other groups. They also said their families were less likely to appropriately express feelings in response to various events that occurred in the family. Highrisk adults said their families were less likely to be interested in and value each others activities and concerns. High-risk individuals also were perceived to more likely have problems in the general functioning and overall health and pathology of their families than individuals at Low- or Medium-risk for workaholism. Although specific family members were not directly targeted in this study, one could predict from its findings and from other empirical research that both spouses and offspring of workaholics may be at risk for certain psychological outcomes, not unlike those of family members of alcoholics (e.g., Chase, Deming, & Wells, 1998; Kelly & Myers, 1996; Robinson & Rhoden, 1998; Tweed & Ryff, 1991). Clinical reports suggest that, because of structural and dynamic characteristics of the workaholic family, each family member can be negatively affected by workaholism and can develop a set of mental health problems of their own (Robinson, 1998b). The structure of the workaholic family system is such that spouses and children become extensions of work and career and the workaholics ego, molding their lives around interests and values of workaholics, thus inevitably leading to family conflict (Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998b). An inverse relationship between marital satisfaction and obsessive working has been documented in the research literature (Gabbard & Menninger, 1989; Matthews, Conger, & Wickrama, 1996; Orbuch, House, Mero, & Webster, 1996). Although this pattern has never been empirically studied among workaholic couples, it has special relevance for workaholic spousal relationships.

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS IN WORKAHOLIC FAMILIES

Little empirical research exists on the spouses of workaholics. Information that is available mostly comes from magazine surveys (Herbst, 1996; Weeks, 1995), and case study reports (Robinson, 1998a). Clearly, these popular press articles are non-empirical, difficult to generalize, and fail to contribute to a solid body of academic research in this area. In the first empirical examination of spousal workaholism, a group

127 BRYAN E. ROBINSON

of 400 physicians was polled regarding their observations of workaholics as marital spouses (Pietropinto, 1986). Results indicated that workaholics devote an inordinate amount of time to work as opposed to marriage and they have higher than normal expectations for marital satisfaction. They are more demanding of achievement in their children than nonworkaholics and their typical approach to leisure time is to fill it with work activities. The workaholics usual style in marital disagreements is to avoid confrontation or use passive-aggressive maneuvers such as silence and sulking. Physicians as a group generally agreed that these combined factors wreak havoc on the family unit. Hundreds of anecdotal reports from self-professed workaholics and their spouses suggest a pattern of broken marriages and brittle social relationships (Robinson, 1998a). Only one study has been executed in which spouses of workaholics were directly assessed on their perspectives of living in an atmosphere of workaholism (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2000). This study compared a sample of spouses of workaholics and spouses of non-workaholics on marital estrangement, positive feelings toward husband, and locus of control. A random national sample of 326 participants drawn from the membership list of the American Counseling Association was surveyed. Spouses of workaholics reported significantly greater marital estrangement and less positive affect towards husbands and higher external locus of control than spouses of non-workaholics. Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference between reports of spouses of workaholics and spouses of non-workaholics in the number of hours their husbands worked (i.e., an average of 9.5 more hours per week). These findings were the first empirical results to corroborate clinical and case study reports. Other studies have suggested that workaholics are more interested in mastery than in feelingsmastery over emotions instead of the expression of themwhich makes them feel safer and more in control. They tend to score higher on the Thinking Scale of the Myers-Briggs Indicator, a psychological test of personality type, than on the Feeling Scale (Swary, 1996). The Japanese refer to the workaholic husband who extricates himself from the familythereby contributing to his feeling like an outsider and his concomitant role as a marginal family memberas a seveneleven husband: He tends to have a rather marginal family membership, and receives only limited substantive validation for his familial self from the family. When the family forms an internal alliance excluding the marginal father, he is likely to feel displaced and unwanted at home, which in turn reinforces his wish to be back in a familiar working

128 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

environment (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994, p. 180). This marginal participation in family life has a negative impact on workaholics during retirement. Japanese wives use the derogatory term, nure-ochiba (a wet fallen leaf) to refer to retired workaholic husbands who do not know what to do with themselves when not working and who hang around the house expecting their wives to be in charge of their spare time (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994). Many spouses describe life with a workaholic as a living nightmare (Robinson, 1998a); for some it can lead to desperation and in rare cases to violence, as evidenced from one report: In February 1972, Earl D. Rhode, 28, a bright executive climbing the ladder of success, fell victim to a national aberration workaholism. He returned to his suburban home in Washington, D.C. one evening after a long day at the office with a briefcase bulging with work. The executive secretary of the Nixon Administrations Cost of Living Council rested on the living room couch as his wife approached and then calmly put a bullet in his head. Then she killed her self. A newspaper story quoted neighbors as saying she had been complaining about her husbands seven-day workweek. (Walsh, 1987, p. 82) Outwardly, workaholic families appear immune from the effects of the hard-driving, compulsive behaviors. Workaholics mask their anxiety, depression, or fear of not being in control by resiliency, perfectionism, over-responsibility, or self-reliance to the point of having difficulty asking for help (Robinson, 1998a). Case studies indicate that family members often are reluctant to come forward for fear of being branded as ingrates for the material rewards generated by the workaholic lifestyle (Robinson, 2000b). Carroll (2001) suggests that this lack of understanding can cause spouses of workaholics to question their own perceptions and feelings and to wonder if perhaps it is they who have the problem. As they see friends and colleagues heap praise and financial rewards on the workaholic, spouses suppress their private pain and quietly believe something is wrong with them (Robinson & Chase, 2001). The themes of isolation, low self-regard, and vilification were reflected in a 10point profile developed from hundreds of case studies of spouses of workaholics (Robinson, 1998a). Over time family members build a pattern of responses to their loved ones workaholism (Robinson, 1998b). Spouses, not unlike alcoholic spouses, become consumed with trying to get workaholics to curb their compulsive behaviors and spend more time in the relationship.

129 BRYAN E. ROBINSON

Spouses and children of workaholics report feeling lonely, unloved, isolated, and emotionally and physically abandoned (Robinson, 1998a). They may habitually complain or become cynical about the workaholics abusive work habits. A common refrain is that even when workaholics are physically present, they are emotionally unavailable and disconnected from the family. Spouses of workaholics may have single-handedly raised the children and complain of having the major portion of parenting responsibilities dumped on them. Filled with resentment of this one-sided arrangement, they tend to react with anger and complaining. Some workaholics then use the verbal complaints as justification for their physical and emotional aloofness. Thus, circularity often occurs when workaholics assert, I wouldnt work so much if you wouldnt nag me all the time, whereupon spouses retort, I wouldnt bug you so much if you didnt work all the time. In the progressive stages of their condition, workaholics do not tolerate their spouses objections to their working. They either take an aggressive approach of blowing up or a passive-aggressive approach of sneaking their stash. Concealing their working is an effort to avoid criticisms and confrontations with a spouse, much like an alcoholic hiding beer bottles. Workaholics hide memos or files in their suitcases, pretend to rest while a spouse goes off to the grocery store, or feign going to the gym and working out at the end of the day in order to sneak in an extra hour or two at the office (Robinson, 1998a).

CLINICAL AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON CHILDREN OF WORKAHOLICS

Three decades ago, it was suggested that workaholism could negatively affect the development of children, although little attention has been paid to this issue since Oates (1971) identified four symptoms from his conversations with a handful of children affected by parental workaholism. Preoccupation was the most significant symptom cited by children of workaholics whose parents always had something else on their minds. The second symptom was hastetheir parents were always rushing around. Irritability was pronounced as when parents were so deeply immersed in their work that it made them cross and cranky. Related to the fact that the children felt that the workaholic parents took work too seriously and lacked humor, was the fourth symptom identified by children. which was parental depression about work. All four of these offsprings reports have been corroborated by later empirical studies which confirm that workaholics exhibit greater

130 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

anxiety, anger, depression, and stress than non-workaholics and that they perceive themselves as having more job stress, perfectionism, more generalized anxiety, more health complaints, and unwillingness to delegate job responsibilities to others than non-workaholics (Fogus, 1998; Haymon, 1993; Spence & Robbins, 1992). The clinical literature suggests that many children of workaholics carry the same legacy as their workaholic parents: they become otherdirected and approval-seeking to meet adult expectations (Robinson, 1998a). This observation has been supported by the first two empirical studies to empirically investigate adult children of workaholics which reported that adult children of workaholics had greater external locus of control (Robinson & Kelley, 1998) and were more extrinsically motivated (Navarette, 1998) than comparison groups of adult children from non-workaholic families. These studies also indicated that adult children of workaholics, compared to adult children of non-workaholics, suffer greater depression, higher anxiety, and greater obsessive-compulsive tendencies (Navarette, 1998; Robinson & Kelley, 1998). The findings in these two studies were replicated by a third study in South Australia, where 125 adult children of workaholics and adult children of non-workaholics were compared on anxiety and depression levels, view of family relationships, and their own risk for workaholism (Searcy, 2000). Results corroborated previous studies. Children of workaholic parents had significantly higher depression levels, rated their families as more dysfunctional, and were at higher risk for workaholism themselves. Children of workaholic mothers, but not workaholic fathers, also had higher levels of anxiety. Moreover, a fourth study comparing adult children of workaholics with adult children of alcoholics (Carroll & Robinson, 2000) indicated that adult children of workaholics had higher scores on depression and parentification than both adults from alcoholic homes and adults from non-workaholic homes. Although the research on adult children of workaholics is still embryonic, results of these studies suggest that children are affected by parental work addiction in negative ways that are mentally unhealthy and that might cause problems well into young adulthood.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY PRACTITIONERS

It is hoped that the findings reported in this paper will alert family practitioners and researchers to the unmet needs of workaholics and their families. Both practitioners and researchers can unmask this

131 BRYAN E. ROBINSON

insidious problem that continues to masquerade as an innocuous, sometimes positive, family attribute. It is imperative that family experts pay more attention to the subject of workaholism so that a better working knowledge of the condition can be accrued. A number of actions can be taken that will improve the quality of research, our understanding of workaholic family functioning, and ultimately our ability to apply this information in professional practice.

More Empirical Research on Workaholic Family Functioning

The attention given to the study of workaholism and family functioning pales in comparison to the hundreds of investigations that exist on alcoholism and other compulsive behaviors. After an exhaustive search of the literature using Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and the Guide to Periodical Literature, other investigators found only a handful of articles containing the word Workaholism in the title or abstract (Seybold & Salomone, 1994). They further claimed that, Although many writers have contributed to the understanding of work addiction, in most cases they have addressed this complex issue in an incomplete and fragmentary manner (p. 4). Researchers have made a compelling case for devoting more scientific attention to the study of workaholism (Burke, 2000). An increase in the sheer quantity of studies on work addiction is neededstudies that include the direct assessment of workaholics and their spouses instead of polls of physicians (e.g., Pietropinto, 1986) or magazine readers (e.g., Herbst, 1996). More empirical research is needed on the psychological problems and adjustment of the spouses and children of workaholics. Currently, only four studies exist on the perceptions of the children (Carroll & Robinson, 2000; Navarette, 1998; Robinson & Kelley, 1998). Moreover, we have clinical accounts on spouses of workaholics (Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998a), but only one study has ever been performed assessing the attitudes, feelings, and psychological adjustment of spouses of workaholics (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2000).

More Sophisticated Research Methodology

The information we have on workaholics is based predominantly on self-report data, namely self-administered questionnaires or faceto-face interviews with convenience samples. These limited approaches, although useful for building a knowledge base, have led to a need for more sampling and methodological specificity. It is important that

132 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

future research studies are well-planned and include randomized, representative samples. A multi-method approach to data collection in which observational techniques are used in conjunction with the traditional self-report and interview techniques will yield more reliable data and lead to a better understanding of workaholic family functioning. No study has ever employed this approach in its investigation of workaholic families. Moreover, it is essential that future research employs a systems-oriented approach and assesses perceptions and behaviors of spouses and children of workaholics. Other researchers have emphasized the importance of collecting data from family, friends, and co-workers to provide a more reliable indicator than the self-reports of workaholics (Porter, 1996). In addition, maintaining an ecological focus is crucial as workaholics are observed interacting in the family and organizational system, not just the researchers laboratory. Family scientists need multivariate designs with larger samples that will provide data on the interaction of significant variables that impact workaholics and their entire families. Longitudinal studies also are needed to follow workaholics over time to assess the progression of the disorder in terms of psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral changes, family relationships, and work satisfaction and performance.

Initial Screening
As part of the initial assessment, practitioners can screen for the presence of workaholism in the family, just as they would for alcoholism. When adults present with evidence of depression and/or parentification, it is important to consider the presence of workaholism in the family of origin as a contributing factor. Moreover, it is important to identify the structure of the workaholic family. Is there a tacit family contract that permits work addiction? Is the spouse unwittingly enabling the addiction? Are there unspoken expectations of children that place them into parentified roles that could cause them long-term emotional problems? Bringing these unconscious factors into the light can help families restructure their behaviors. Once the family structure is ascertained, screening beyond the surface of this pretty addiction can be made for potential anxiety and depression among workaholics, their spouses, and children. Expectations of change in workaholics require that family members who have built a pattern of reactions to their loved ones work addiction, be

133 BRYAN E. ROBINSON

prepared to change as well. Spouses may have gotten into the habit of complaining or being cynical about the workaholics absence. Clinicians who work with the workaholic couple must be prepared for resistance on both sides. One parent who single-handedly raised the kids may become resentful when suddenly her workaholic spouse decides to take a more active role in parenting. Change in family structure can evoke anger and hurtful feelings of where were you 10 years ago? and can lead to turf battles. Family members may be sending the workaholic mixed signals by complaining about his or her absence and, as movement back into the family system occurs, complaining about his or her attempts at integration. Spouses need to be made aware of the double bind of complaining about their partners overworking in one breath and making unreasonable financial demands for material comforts in another. In some cases they must be willing and prepared to sacrifice financial advantages in return for less working and more presence and participation of workaholics in their families. Another issue that needs to be addressed in treatment is helping families negotiate boundaries around the amount of time they spend working together and talking about work. They can be helped to learn that work does not have to dominate their conversations but that they can discuss work frustrations and successes as all healthy couples and families do. Additional goals in terms of family dynamics are to work on effective family roles, greater affective responses, more affective involvement, and higher general functioningall of which characterize the workaholic family system (Robinson & Post, 1995).

REFERENCES
Baptiste, D. A. (1987). Psychotherapy with gay/lesbian couples and their children in stepfamilies: A challenge for marriage and family therapists. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 223238. Barret, R. L., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Gay fathers. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Concepts, results and future research directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 119. Carroll, J. J. (2001). Female spouses of compulsive high achievers: Consequences and implications for counselors. In B. E. Robinson & N. D. Chase (Eds.), High-performing families: Causes, consequences, and clinical solutions (pp. 2340). Washington, DC: American Counseling Association. Carroll, J. J., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification among adults as related to paternal workaholism and alcoholism. The Family Journal, 8, 3341.

134 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

Chase, N.D., Deming, M. P., & Wells, M. C. (1998). Parentification, parental alcoholism, and academic status among young adults. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 105114. Flowers, C., & Robinson, B. E. (2001). A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, in press. Fogus, J. L. (1998). Relationships among flow, work addiction, and health. Unpublished masters thesis. Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee State University. Gabbard, G. O., & Menninger, R. W. (1989). The psychology of postponement in the medical marriage. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261, 23782381. Haymon, S. (1993). The relationship of work addiction and depression, anxiety, and anger in college males. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 5401B. Herbst, A. C. (1996). Married to the job. McCalls Magazine, November, 130134. Ishiyama, F. I., & Kitayama, A. (1994). Overwork and career-centered self-validation among the Japanese: Psychosocial issues and counselling implications. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 167182. Kelly, V. A., & Myers, J. E. (1996). Parental alcoholism and coping: A comparison of female children of alcoholics with female children of nonalcoholics. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 501504. Lewis, J. M., & Looney, J. G. (1983). The long struggle: Well-functioning workingclass Black families. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Matthews, B., & Halbrook, M. (1990). Adult children of alcoholics: Implications for career development. Journal of Career Development, 16, 261268. Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1996). Work-family conflict and marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 6279. Mitchell, G., & Cronson, H. (1987). The celebrity family: A clinical perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 235240. Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career counseling and research. Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180187. Navarette, S. (1998). An empirical study of adult children of workaholics: Psychological functioning and intergenerational transmission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Santa Barbara, CA: California Graduate Institute. Oates, W. (1968). On being a workaholic: A serious jest. Pastoral Psychology, 19, 1620. Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World Publishing Company. Orbuch, T. L., House, J. S., Mero, R. P., & Webster, P. S. (1996). Marital quality over the life span. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 162171. Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 20, 8996. Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 7084. Porter, G. (1998). Can you trust a workaholic? How work addiction erodes trust throughout the organization. Journal of Contemporary Business Issues, 6, 4857. Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University Press. Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Spouses of workaholics: Implications for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 35, 260268. Robinson, B. E. (1998c). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 6373. Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199210. Robinson, B.E. (2000a). Adult children of workaholics: Clinical and empirical research with implications for family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11, 1526.

135 BRYAN E. ROBINSON

Robinson, B. E. (2000b). Chained to the desk: Work may be the great unexamined therapy issue of our time. Family Therapy Networker, 24 (July/August), 2637. Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2000). Marital estrangement, positive affect, and locus of control among spouses of workaholics and non-workaholics: A national study. American Journal of Family Therapy, in press. Robinson, B. E., & Chase, N. (2001). High-performing families: Causes, consequences and clinical solutions. Washington, DC: American Counseling Association. Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of workaholics: Self-concept, locus of control, anxiety, and depression. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 223238. Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Work addiction as a function of family of origin and its influence on current family functioning. The Family Journal, 3, 200206. Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1997). Risk of work addiction to family functioning. Psychological Reports, 81, 9195. Robinson, B. E., & Rhoden, L. (1998). (2nd. Ed.). Working with children of alcoholics: The practitioners handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Searcy, E. A. (2000). Adult children of workaholics: Anxiety, depression, family relationships, and risk for work addiction. Unpublished masters thesis. South Australia: University of South Australia. Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of causes and counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 49. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholics: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160178. Swary, S. L. (1996). Myers-Briggs Type and workaholism. Atlanta, GA. Tweed, S. H., & Ryff, C. D. (1991). Adult children of alcoholics: Profiles of wellness amid distress. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 133141. Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1978). Common problems of stepparents and their spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 252262. Wallerstein, J. (1985). The overburdened child: Some long-term consequences of divorce. Social Work, 30, 116123. Walsh, E. (1987). Workaholism: No life for the leisurelorn. Parks and Recreation, 8284. Weeks, D. (1995). Cooling off your office affair. NorthWest Airlines World Traveler Magazine, 5962. Wegscheider, S. (1980). Another chance: Hope and health for the alcoholic family. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Weinberg, R. B., & Mauksch, L. B. (1991). Examining family of origin influences in life at work. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 233242. Woititz, J. (1983). Adult children of alcoholics. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.