Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 786791

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Beyond the Big Five: How narcissism, perfectionism, and dispositional affect relate to workaholism
Malissa A. Clark *, Ariel M. Lelchook 1, Marcie L. Taylor 1
Wayne State University, Department of Psychology, 5057 Woodward Avenue, 7704, Detroit, MI 48202, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Researchers have suggested that it is important for the eld to go beyond just looking at personality using the Big Five in relation to organizational behavior. Heeding this call, the present study investigated how narcissism, three dimensions of perfectionism (high standards, discrepancy, and order), and dispositional positive and negative affect relate to overall workaholism as well as three identied workaholism dimensions (impatience, compulsion to work, and polychronic control) above and beyond the Big Five personality factors. Hierarchical regression analyses indicate that the perfectionism dimensions of high standards and discrepancy, negative affect, and positive affect are signicantly related to workaholism above and beyond the Big Five personality factors. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 28 April 2009 Received in revised form 22 December 2009 Accepted 12 January 2010 Available online 7 March 2010 Keywords: Workaholism Personality Narcissism Perfectionism Affect Big Five

In todays fast-paced society, it is not uncommon for someone to be described by the popular media as a workaholic. In recent years there has been a notable surge of interest in workaholism by the research community, perhaps because workaholism has been linked with negative individual and organizational outcomes such as work-family conict (Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, 2009) and a decrease in overall job and/or life satisfaction (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). While much research has focused on the outcomes of workaholism, much less is known about the personality variables that are related to workaholism. With the increase in weekly work hours over the past two decades, along with recent theoretical developments on this topic (Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007), it seems appropriate and timely to explore how related personality traits may be mapped into the nomological network of workaholism. 1. Background and denition There is some disagreement amongst researchers regarding the conceptualization and measurement of workaholism (McMillan & ODriscoll, 2006). For example, workaholism has been discussed as an addiction (Ng et al., 2007; Porter, 1996), behavior pattern (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997), set of attitudes about work (Spence
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 313 577 2800. E-mail addresses: malissa@wayne.edu (M.A. Clark), alelchook@wayne.edu (A.M. Lelchook), marcie_tylr@yahoo.com (M.L. Taylor). 1 Tel.: +1 313 577 2800. 0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.013

& Robbins, 1992), and a syndrome (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Part of the disagreement regarding the conceptualization of workaholism is because workaholism is a multidimensional construct and researchers tend to disagree on the main dimensions of workaholism. Although not all denitions would fall cleanly into these categories, many denitions of workaholism include the following themes: working to the exclusion of other life activities (e.g., Ng et al., 2007; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997), being consumed with thoughts and feelings about working (e.g., Ng et al., 2007; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997; Spence & Robbins, 1992), and going above ones assigned roles/duties at work because of internal, rather than external (e.g., nancial situation) factors (e.g., Mudrack, 2004; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008). 2. Personality and workaholism Ng and colleagues (2007) present a theoretical model suggesting that people can become workaholics because their workaholic behaviors are repeatedly reinforced, their social or cultural experiences facilitate workaholism, or they possess certain personality traits. With the exception of a few studies there has been little research on the personality traits associated with being a workaholic. Researchers have suggested that depending on the specic pattern of workaholic behaviors, some workaholic individuals may be an asset to organizations, while others may be a dysfunctional organizational member (Scott et al., 1997). While Scott and colleagues present a compelling model which discusses certain organizational conditions and situational variables that may inuence the

M.A. Clark et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 786791

787

manifestation of workaholic behaviors (e.g., opportunities for control), they do not discuss personality in their model, and how different personality traits may relate to different patterns of workaholic behaviors. It is possible that certain personality traits (e.g., positive affect) may relate to what some consider healthy workaholic behaviors (e.g., going above and beyond ones assigned work duties), while other personality traits (e.g., negative affect) may relate to dysfunctional workaholic behaviors (e.g., being consumed with thoughts about working). Thus, in the present study, we examine how several personality traits relate to different dimensions of workaholism. In one of the few studies to examine the link between personality and workaholism dimensions, Burke, Matthiesen, and Pallesen (2006) looked at the relationship between generalized self efcacy, the Big Five personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness) and three workaholism dimensions (drive to work, joy in work, and work involvement). Neuroticism was related to feeling driven to work, Extraversion was related to work involvement and joy in work, and generalized self-efcacy was related to all three dimensions. While demographic variables and situational characteristics accounted for no more than 3% of the variance in any of the dimensions, personality accounted for 10% of the variance in work involvement, 22% of the variance in drive to work, and 11% of the variance in joy in work. In another study, which investigated the relationship between obsessivecompulsive personality and workaholism, individuals scoring higher on measures of obstinacy and superego were more likely to engage in non-required work activities (Mudrack, 2004). While these studies provide some initial perspective on the nomological network of workaholism, unanswered questions remain regarding how personality characteristics beyond the Big Five relate to workaholism. Recently several researchers have stated that it is important for the eld to go beyond just looking at the Big Five (e.g., Hough & Oswald, 2008). Heeding this call, we examine the relationship between several personality variables that, for the most part, have been examined very little (or not at all, in the case of narcissism), in relation to workaholism. Thus, our study goal was to examine how narcissism, perfectionism dimensions, and positive and negative affectivity relate to workaholism beyond the Big Five. Narcissism: Narcissistic individuals have a grandiose sense of their own self-importance, and they often boast or exaggerate their accomplishments (Leonard & Harvey, 2008). Since narcissistic individuals value and pursue power and self-importance, this may lead to a preoccupation with work and succeeding at work, and working to the exclusion of other life activities; however, because narcissistic individuals think very highly of themselves, they are not likely to be plagued by constant feelings of guilt, which is often a driving force behind workaholic behavior. Although some researchers have found narcissism to positively correlate with Extraversion, and negatively correlate with Agreeableness and Neuroticism (Graziano & Tobin, 2001), other researchers have noted that narcissism is not reected well in the Big Five (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Therefore, we thought it was important to investigate the degree to which narcissism is related to workaholism above and beyond the Big Five. Perfectionism: Many individuals dene perfectionism as having three dimensions: high standards (the degree to which one sets high performance expectations for oneself), discrepancy (the perceived gap between ones performance expectations and self-evaluations of current performance), and order (ones preference for organization and order; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001). While having high standards and a preference for order are largely adaptive qualities, having high discrepancy has been shown to be maladaptive (Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004). While having high standards may lead a person to go above

assigned role duties, having high discrepancy may cause an individual to feel consumed by guilt and other thoughts about working. Therefore, perfectionism dimensions may relate to different dimensions of workaholism. To date, the relationship between perfectionism and the Big Five is mixed. For example, high standards and order were found to relate to Conscientiousness, while discrepancy related to Neuroticism (Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 2007). However, the dimensions of perfectionism have been shown to provide incremental validity over the Big Five in relation to constructs such as self-esteem and personality pathology (Rice et al., 2007; Sherry, Hewitt, Flett, Lee-Baggley, & Hall, 2007). Thus, we thought it was important to examine how perfectionism relates to workaholism above and beyond the Big Five. Positive and negative affect: Affective dispositions are stable over time and across situations, and they can be classied into trait positive affect (PA) and trait negative affect (NA). PA is characterized as a general tendency to be energetic, excited, and joyful, while NA is characterized as a tendency to be anxious, afraid, and angry (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993). Researchers have asserted that PA and NA should differentially predict real-world outcomes. For example, using meta-analytic techniques, Thorensen, Kaplan, Barsky, de Chermont, and Warren (2003) found that NA had stronger relationships with negativelyvalenced outcomes than PA. Individuals high in NA, who tend to feel high levels of guilt and anxiety, may be more likely to constantly worry about their work. In contrast, individuals high in PA, which has been found to positively relate to job satisfaction and personal accomplishment (Thorensen et al., 2003), may be more likely to go above his or her assigned duties at work. Therefore, PA and NA may be differentially related to workaholism dimensions. PA and NA have often been shown to relate to Extraversion and Neuroticism, respectively (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1991), and some researchers even treat PA and Extraversion, and NA and Neuroticism, as equivalent constructs (e.g., Thorensen et al., 2003). However, the correlations between PA and Extraversion and between NA and Neuroticism are typically around .40 (Levy, Cober, & Norris-Watts, 2003), which suggests that they are related, yet distinct constructs. Furthermore, Judge and Larsen (2001) argue that PA and NA are more proximal inuences on job satisfaction than the Big Five. Therefore, it appears there is merit to investigating the relationships between PA and NA and workaholism, above and beyond the Big Five. 3. Method 3.1. Participants The study consisted of 323 working students at a large urban Midwestern university who worked more than 25 h per week (M = 36 h worked per week) and had worked in their current occupation for an average of 4.23 years. The university was located in a metropolitan urban area, and enrolled many older commuter students as well as more traditional younger students. Participants had a mean age of 24, were 51% Caucasian, 27% African American, 7% Arabic, 6% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 5% other. The sample was 73% women, 57% worked full-time, 87% were not married, and 83% had no children. One case was found to be a multivariate outlier, and was excluded from the analyses, resulting in a nal sample of 322. 3.2. Measures Narcissism: Narcissism was measured using the revised 40-item Narcissistic personality inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). This

788

M.A. Clark et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 786791

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities (on the diagonal), and intercorrelations among study variables.

inventory was comprised of forced choices between a non-narcissistic response (coded 0; e.g., I prefer to blend in with the crowd) and a narcissistic response (coded 1; e.g., I like to be the center of attention). Items were summed, creating a total score ranging from 040. Higher scores indicate higher levels of narcissism. Cronbach alphas for all measures in the present study are reported in Table 1. Workaholism: Workaholism was assessed using the 25-item Work addiction risk test (WART; Robinson, 1999). A sample item is, I nd myself continuing to work after my co-workers have called it quits. Responses ranged from 1 (never true) to 4 (always true), with higher scores indicating higher levels of workaholism. Responses on all items were summed, creating a total score ranging from 25100. Researchers have observed that the items in the WART map on well with many denitions of workaholism (Scott et al., 1997); thus, it appears to tap into several aspects of workaholism. Flowers and Robinson (2002) conducted a principal components analysis on the WART, and found a ve factor solution: Compulsive tendencies, control, impaired communication and self-absorption, inability to delegate, and self-worth. However, given that two of the factors only contain one and two items, respectively, this indicates the possibility of an over-factored solution. Thus, we reexamined its factor structure using parallel analysis (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004), a more conservative factor retention approach, in order to determine workaholism dimensions. Perfectionism: The almost-perfect scale-revised (Slaney et al., 2001) was used to assess perfectionism. This scale consists of 7 items measuring high standards, 12 items measuring discrepancy, and 4 items measuring order. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores on these subscales indicating higher standards, greater levels of discrepancy, and higher preference for order, respectively. Positive and negative affect: The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS) was used to measure positive and negative affectivity (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Sample NA adjective descriptors include nervous and angry, and sample PA adjective descriptors include excited and active. Responses ranged from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), with higher scores indicating higher levels of PA and NA, respectively. Big Five: The Big Five personality traits were assessed using a 50-item self-report survey from the international personality item pool (Goldberg et al., 2006). Participants responded to phrases illustrating the Big Five factor markers of Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness. Responses ranged from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate), with higher scores indicating higher levels of each personality trait.

0.16** 0.19** 0.15** 0.28** 0.29** .20** 0.22** 0.15** 0.30** 0.265** 0.16** 0.87** 0.58** 0.59** 0.21** 0.80 0.13* 0.33** 0.80 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.84 0.40** 0.48** 0.37** 0.11* 0.78 0.08 0.16** 0.22** 0.65** 0.10 0.89 0.37** 0.41** 0.37** 0.12* 0.46** 0.17** 0.89 0.47** 0.11* 0.05 0.16** 0.20** 0.11 0.28** 0.81 0.22** 0.47** 0.49** 0.10 0.52** 0.11* 0.48** 0.12* 0.86 0.08 0.18** 0.24** 0.40** 0.09 0.47** 0.24** 0.02 0.06 0.89 0.10 0.17** 0.72** 0.04 0.23** 0.10 0.29** 0.04 0.50** 0.10 0.84 0.13* 0.01 0.02 0.44** 0.16** 0.41** 0.05 0.24** 0.17** 0.40** 0.07 0.90 0.15** 0.02 0.09 0.49** 0.13* 0.42** 0.01 0.28** 0.10 0.36** 0.00 0.85** 0.80 0.01 0.21** 0.14* 0.39** 0.04 0.45** 0.13* 0.19** 0.01 0.42** 0.01 0.84** 0.61** 0.78

10

11

12

13

14

15

0.80

4. Results
0.86

Before proceeding to the regression analysis, parallel analysis was used in an exploratory factor analysis to determine the structure of the WART. First, a principal components analysis (PCA) was performed, using oblique rotation (direct oblimin with delta equal to zero), and the Kaiser or mineigen greater than 1 criterion (K1) rule (in which factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 are obtained) was used to determine the number of factors. This approach yielded six factors, which explained a total of 57% of the variance. However, because the K1 method has been shown to overestimate the number of factors (Hayton et al., 2004), a parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) was also performed. Parallel analysis has been found to be more accurate than other, more commonly used, factor retention methods (e.g., Zwick & Velicer, 1986; see also Hayton et al., 2004, for a detailed description of the steps involved in parallel analysis). Based on the results of the parallel analysis, only

0.73 0.59 0.61 0.73 0.56 0.73 0.66 6.44 6.57 13.44 4.64 10.91 0.53 0.54 3.40 4.00 3.67 2.93 3.74 2.22 3.71 18.33 41.08 43.77 21.40 61.42 2.55 2.06

SD

1. Extraversion 2. Agreeableness 3.Conscientiousness 4. Neuroticism 5. Openness 6. NA 7. PA 8. Narcissism 9. High standards 10. Discrepancy 11. Order 12. WART overall 13. Impatience 14. Compulsion to work 15. Polychronic control

2.66

0.48

Note. N = 322. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

M.A. Clark et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 786791

789

three factors were retained. The three factor solution explained 43% of the variance. The rst factor had 8 items with coefcients greater than .40 (items 24, 1012, 14, and 16), which represents impatience (e.g., I seem to be in a hurry and racing against the clock.). The second factor had 7 items with coefcients greater than .40 (with the exception of item 1, which had a coefcient of .388; items 1, 59, 15, 18, 20, and 21), which represents an internal compulsion to work (e.g., It is hard for me to relax when Im not working.). The third factor had 10 items with coefcients greater than .40 (with the exception of 1 item, which had a coefcient of .39, which represents what we call polychronic control. We dene polychronic control as having a preference to juggle and be in control of many tasks at once (e.g., I stay busy and keep many irons in the re.; I prefer to do most things myself rather than ask for help.). Because the three factors were highly correlated, we examined the relationship between personality variables and overall workaholism as well as the three dimensions described above. Descriptive statistics, reliability coefcients, and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to investigate how narcissism, dimensions of perfectionism, and dispositional affect relate to both overall workaholism as well as three dimensions of workaholism (i.e., impatience, compulsion to work, and polychronic control) above and beyond the Big Five (see Table 2). First, demographic variables were entered in step 1 to serve as controls. The second step included the Big Five personality variables. Narcissism, perfectionism dimensions, PA and NA were entered in the third step using forward entry to identify unique explained variance beyond the Big Five. Consistent with previous ndings (Burke et al., 2006) the demographic variables did not account for a signicant amount of explained variance in any of the models (average R2 = 0.015). The Big Five added signicantly to the prediction of workaholism in all models (average DR2 = 0.20, p < 0.001). At this step, Neuroticism was positively related to overall workaholism in all models. In addition, Conscientiousness was negatively related to impatience, Agreeableness was negatively related to compulsion to work, and Openness to Experience was positively related to polychronic control. The addition of the personality variables beyond the Big Five to the model added signicantly to the prediction of workaholism in all models (average DR2 = 0.10, p < 0.001). Narcissism was signi-

cantly related to overall workaholism, as well as the impatience and compulsion to work dimensions. The high standards dimension of perfectionism was only signicantly related to overall workaholism, but the discrepancy dimension of perfectionism was a signicant predictor in all models. NA was signicantly related to overall workaholism, as well as the impatience and compulsion to work dimensions, and PA was signicantly related to the polychronic control dimension. Interestingly, once the third block of predictors was added to the model, the relationships between Conscientiousness and impatience, and between Agreeableness and compulsion to work disappeared. However, Neuroticism remained a signicant predictor in all models, and Openness to Experience remained a signicant predictor of polychronic control. 5. Discussion This paper heeds the call to examine how other personality variables beyond the Big Five relate to workaholism (e.g., Burke et al., 2006), and takes this one step further by examining how personality traits relate to different dimensions of workaholism. Overall, the present study indicates that although some of the Big Five factors (in particular Neuroticism) are predictive of at least some aspects of workaholism other personality traits such as narcisism, NA, PA, and the perfectionism dimensions of high standards and discrepancy are signicantly related to workaholism above and beyond the Big Five personality factors. Thus, this study lends support to the assertion that it is important to look at personality variables other than the Big Five (Hough & Oswald, 2008). The present study also provides an examination of how different personality variables differentially relate to different dimensions of workaholism. For example, both NA and narcissism are positively related to the workaholism dimensions of impatience and compulsion to work, but are not related to the workaholism dimension of polychronic control. Conversely, PA and Openness to Experience are only related to the polychronic control dimension of workaholism. As both PA and Openness to Experience have been known to relate to many positive aspects of organizational behavior, these ndings are particularly interesting, suggesting that there may indeed be positive aspects of workaholism. Future research should further examine these relationships, particularly in terms of understanding the individual and organizational out-

Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regression with demographics, the Big Five, and additional personality variables predicting workaholism scores. Variable Overall WART Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness NA PA Narcissism High standards Discrepancy Order Multiple R R2 Adjusted R2 F 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.43*** 0.11 Step 3 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.18** 0.06 0.18** 0.17** 0.13* 0.26*** 0.47 0.22 0.19 8.04*** 0.58 0.34 0.31 10.38*** 0.52 0.27 0.24 10.36*** Impatience Step 2 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.47*** 0.09 Step 3 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.28*** 0.07 0.14* 0.21*** 0.19** 0.59 0.34 0.31 11.15*** 0.47 0.22 0.19 7.77*** Compulsion to work Step 2 0.02 0.17** 0.07 0.40*** 0.02 Step 3 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.14* 0.01 0.23** 0.17** 0.25*** 0.57 0.32 0.29 10.47*** 0.40 0.16 0.13 5.30*** 0.29*** 0.49 0.24 0.20 7.27*** Polychronic Control Step 2 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.26*** 0.17* Step 3 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.17** 0.13* 0.18**

Note. N = 322. Due to space constraints only steps 2 and 3 of the regression models are included in the table. The rst step (containing the control variables of marital status, gender, children, age, years in occupation, and work status) was nonsignicant for all regression models. Control variables of age and number of years in present occupation were heavily skewed, so a logarithmic transformation was performed prior to analysis. Standardized regression coefcients are reported. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

790

M.A. Clark et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 786791

comes associated with the polychronic control dimension of workaholism. These ndings also support investigating both NA/PA and Neuroticism/Extraversion (c.f., Thorensen et al., 2003). In all models with the exception of polychronic control, both Neuroticism and NA remained signicant predictors in the nal regression step. In addition, PA provided a unique contribution above and beyond Extraversion in relation to polychronic control. Thus, future research should not presume that relationships between Neuroticism and Extraversion in relation to workaholism would necessarily hold true for NA and PA. As far as we know this is the rst study to examine the relationship between narcissism and workaholism. We found that narcissism was related to overall workaholism as well as the impatience and compulsion to work dimensions. The high selfimportance and need for power of narcissists may lead to an excessive focus on their work, an area where they can overtly showcase their abilities, in contrast to other life domains (e.g., family) where accomplishments may not be as evident. A recent meta-analysis on the factors that motivate individuals to work long work hours found that an individuals organizational identity was related to longer work hours (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Future research should further examine the relationship between narcissism and workaholism. An interesting avenue of research could investigate what motives may drive workaholic behavior (e.g., identity motives or utilitarian motives; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). This study adds to the extant literature by examining how different perfectionism dimensions relate to workaholism dimensions. Our results suggest that discrepancy, the perceived gap between current and expected performance, may be a driving force behind workaholic behaviors. 6. Limitations One limitation of this study was the inability to address issues of causality because all study variables were collected concurrently. Secondly, since all data were collected from a single source and with self-report surveys, future research should consider using different assessments of workaholism, such as observer ratings, to minimize same-source bias. Additionally, because our sample consisted mostly of women, there is the possibility that these relationships may not hold across genders. Although using a student sample may limit the generalizability of these ndings, we believe it is unlikely to be a major limitation because the sample was limited to individuals working greater than 25 h per week and the average number of hours worked per week was close to 40 (the traditional work week). 7. Conclusions The key nding from this study is that narcissism, the discrepancy and high standards dimensions of perfectionism, NA, and PA are all positively related to at least some dimensions of workaholism beyond the Big Five personality factors. Results suggest that workaholism may have both positive and negative components. This can have important implications for practitioners. For example, reward systems and organizational initiatives could focus on cultivating an organizational culture that rewards positive workaholic behaviors (e.g., multitasking) and discourages negative workaholic behaviors (e.g., excessive focus on work to the extent of ignoring family). Furthermore, the more we know about the personality traits associated with positive versus negative workaholic behaviors, the more equipped practitioners will be to select appropriate individuals for various roles within the organization. We urge researchers to continue to investigate the relationship

between a broad range of personality variables and workaholism, examine how personality traits may interact with situational, contextual, or demographic variables (e.g., organizational culture or work characteristics), and investigate the relationship between workaholism dimensions and both negative and positive outcomes.

References
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 5262. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. (2009). Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover-crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 2333. Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Workaholism, organizational life and well-being of Norwegian nursing staff. Career Development International, 11, 463477. Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595606. Flowers, C. P., & Robinson, B. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of the work addiction risk test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 517526. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of publicdomain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 8496. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2001). The distributed processing of narcissists: Paradox lost? Psychological Inquiry, 12, 219222. Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. R. (2004). Selfcriticism, dependency, self- esteem, and grade-point average satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 192200. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory, factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191205. Hill, R. W., McIntire, K., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). Perfectionism and the Big Five factors. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 257270. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179185. Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrialorganizational psychology: Reections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 272290. Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 6798. Leonard, N. H., & Harvey, M. (2008). Negative perfectionism: Examining negative excessive behavior in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 585610. Levy, P. E., Cober, R. T., & Norris-Watts, C. (2003). Specic personality measures. In J. C. Thomas (Ed.), The Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Vol.4: Industrial/ Organizational Assessment (pp. 130148). NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full ve-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227232. McMillan, L. H. W., & ODriscoll, M. P. (2006). Exploring new frontiers to generate an integrated denition of workaholism. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 89107). Northampton, MA: Elgar. Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490508. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Long work hours: A social identity perspective on meta-analysis data. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 853880. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: a conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 111136. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556563. Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 7084. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its constructive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890902. Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (2007). Perfectionism and the ve-factor model of personality. Assessment, 14, 385398. Robinson, B. E. (1999). The work addiction risk test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199210. Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56, 699730. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee wellbeing? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173203.

M.A. Clark et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 786791 Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287314. Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Lee-Baggley, D. L., & Hall, P. A. (2007). Trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation in personality pathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 477490. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130145. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholics: Denition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160178.

791

Thorensen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., de Chermont, K., & Warren, C. R. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914945. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factors inuencing ve rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432442.