Articles
The Relationship Between Workaholism and
Marital Disaffection: Husbands’ Perspective
Bryan E. Robinson
Claudia Flowers
Kok-Mun Ng
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Previous research suggests that wives of workaholics experience
greater marital estrangement and less positive feelings than do wives
of nonworkaholics. This study examined husbands’ perception of
marital disaffection and the relationship to their wives’ workaholic
tendencies. A random sample of 272 male members of the American
Counseling Association were mailed a survey that examined their
spouses’ workaholic behavior, marital disaffection, locus of control,
and positive and negative affects. The results suggest that worka-
holism is positively related to martial disaffection (p < .01). The most
important workaholism domains for predicting martial disaffection
were overcontrolling behavior (r = .36) and impaired communica-
tion (r = .38). The results underscore the need for greater clinical
awareness of marital problems associated with workaholic tendency.
Keywords: workaholism; marital disaffection; gender work issues;
family functioning
A lthough the literature is sparse, the research on the
psychological and familial correlates of workaholism
indicates that workaholism is associated with family dys-
function (Robinson, 2001). The term workaholism has numer-
ous definitions (see Robinson & Flowers, 2004, for a review).
It is defined in this article as a compulsive and progres-
sive, potentially fatal disorder characterized by self-imposed
demands, compulsive overworking, inability to regulate work
habits, and overindulgence in work to the exclusion and
detriment of intimate relationships and major life activities
(Robinson, 1998a; Robinson & Chase, 2001).
Workaholism and Family Functioning
The structural and dynamic characteristics of the worka-
holic family indicate that all family members can be negatively
Authors’ Note: This research was supported in part by funds from
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Claudia Flowers,
Department of Educational Administration, Research, and
Technology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte,
NC 28223-0001; e-mail: CPFlower@email.uncc.edu.
THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 14 No. 3, July 2006 213-220
DOI: 10.1177/1066480706287269
© 2006 Sage Publications
affected by workaholism and can develop a set of mental
health problems of their own (Robinson, 1998d, 2001). The
bulk of clinical data (Robinson, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c)
and empirical studies (Carroll & Robinson, 2000; Navarrette,
1998; Robinson & Carroll, 1999; Robinson & Kelley, 1998)
have focused on adult children of workaholics. Generally,
these findings suggest that adult children of workaholics
have greater psychological problems and more health com-
plaints than do adult children of nonworkaholics.
Although little attention has been paid to the association
between workaholism and marital relationship, popular press
surveys (Herbst, 1996; Weeks, 1995) and clinical reports
(Carroll, 2001; Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998c) com-
pose the literature on spouses of workaholics. Only one
study (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2001) in which female
spouses were directly assessed on their perspectives of
living in an atmosphere of workaholism has been conducted.
This study compared a sample of wives of workaholics and
wives of nonworkaholics on marital disaffection, positive
feelings toward husband, and locus of control. A random
sample of 326 participants drawn from the membership list
of the American Counseling Association was surveyed.
Wives of workaholics reported significantly greater marital
disaffection and less positive affect toward husbands and
higher external locus of control than did wives of non-
workaholics. Moreover, there was a statistically significant
difference between reports of wives of workaholics and wives
of nonworkaholics in the number of hours their husband
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.
Clinical reports indicate that workaholism, like alco-
holism, takes its toll on other family members living with a
workaholic (Robinson, 2000a). No empirical research
has examined the relationship between workaholism and
marital disaffection from the husband’s perspective. The
present study sought to address this deficit by examining the
213
214 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006
relationship of workaholism to the marital dyad utilizing
husbands’ perspective and presenting the results of the first
empirical study on the subject. To parallel the previous study
of the wives of workaholics, this study was delimited to
examining only male and female marital couples and not
same-sex couples.
Personality and Marital Satisfaction
For decades, researchers have found associations between
personality variables and marital relationship (Caughlin,
Huston, & Houts, 2000; Doherty, 1981). Sabatelli (1986)
noted that “the importance of these variables for the study of
interpersonal relationships is reflected in their consistent
influence on the way in which information from one’s social
environment is perceived and processed and in turn influences
people’s social orientations” (p. 939). Neurotism, agreeable-
ness, conscientiousness, and positive expressivity were
found significantly related to marital satisfaction (Eysenck &
Wakefield, 1981; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen,
2004; Olsen, Martin, & Halverson, 1999; Watson, Hubbard,
& Wiese, 2000). Among the personality variables, locus of
control and affectivity have received a great amount of atten-
tion (e.g., Bugaighis, Schumm, Bollman, & Jurich, 1983;
Camp & Ganong, 1997; Caughlin et al., 2000; Miller,
Lefcourt, Holmes, Ware, & Saleh, 1986; Watson et al., 2000).
Locus of control. Locus of control refers to the extent to
which people believe the outcomes of events in their lives are
attributable to their own actions (Rotter, 1966). Individuals
with external locus of control orientations believe that ulti-
mate control of their lives rests outside of themselves,
whereas those with internal locus of control believe that out-
comes of life events are a function of their own abilities,
attributes, and skills. Researchers theorized that persons with
an internal locus of control are most willing to invest time,
energy, and effort necessary to keep their marital relation-
ships healthy, dynamic, and growing because they believe in
a great sense of personal control over the functioning of their
close relationships (Camp & Ganong, 1997).
Camp and Ganong (1997) noted that findings in the
literature on the relationship between locus of control
orientation and marital satisfaction have been mixed. For
example, Bugaighis et al. (1983) found that the greater the
internal locus of control of the wife, the higher the marital sat-
isfaction. But, Miller et al. (1986) reported that general locus
of control of individuals did not correlate with their marital sat-
isfaction; however, individuals’ marital locus of control was
significantly related to their marital satisfaction in that inter-
nality was positively related to reported marital satisfaction.
These findings were mainly based on studying individuals and
not couples. Hence, Camp and Ganong studied the influence
of husband-wife locus-of-control combinations on 137 cou-
ples who had been in long-term marriages. Their findings
showed that couples who both had internal locus of control
were significantly more satisfied with their marriages than
were couples with other locus of control combinations, except
those couples of internal husbands and external wives. Internal
husbands married to external wives were more satisfied than
were all external husbands regardless of who they married.
Internal wives married to external husbands were only more
satisfied than were individuals in marriages with both external
spouses. Camp and Ganong’s findings indicated that an indi-
vidual’s internality was more important than the partner’s
internal locus of control. Also, persons with an internal locus
of control, in general, were more satisfied than were persons
with an external locus of control, regardless of gender or part-
ner locus of control.
Smolen and Spiegel’s (1987) findings support the view
that, in husbands, internality of locus of control serves to
buffer the effects of marital conflict on marital satisfaction.
Robinson, Carroll, et al. (2001) found that women with
workaholic spouses reported greater marital disaffection and
greater external locus of control compared to women with
nonworkaholic spouses. However, there is a gap in the litera-
ture that specifically addresses the experience of men married
to workaholic spouses.
Affectivity. Affectivity is an emotion-based trait dimen-
sion (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) that creates a dispo-
sition to experience emotions influencing cognition and
self-concept. Affectivity is theorized to have two indepen-
dent dimensions: positive and negative. Positive affectivity
is the tendency to experience positive emotional states and
negative affectivity, negative ones. Persons with high nega-
tive affectivity tend to perceive themselves and the world
more negatively. They also tend to experience greater dis-
tress than do low-negative affectivity persons, even in the
absence of stressors (Watson & Clark, 1984).
Watson et al. (2000) found that negative affectivity and
positive affectivity were consistent predictors of relationship
satisfaction among married and dating men and women.
Negative affectivity was negatively correlated to relation-
ship satisfaction, whereas positive affectivity was positively
correlated to relationship satisfaction; the correlations
appeared to be stronger among married women and men.
Davila, Bradbury, and Fincham (1998) also found that, for
both wives and husbands, negative affectivity was neg-
atively correlated to marital satisfaction. Previous research
suggests that wives of workaholics had a much lower posi-
tive feeling toward their spouse than did wives of non-
workaholics (Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001). However,
there is a lack of literature that examines the difference of
affectivity between men who have married workaholic and
nonworkaholic spouses. Also, no study has addressed the
relationships among husbands’ affectivity, their spouses’ work
habits, and their marital satisfaction.
Research Questions
This study examined the relationship of wives’ workaholism
to marital disaffection, locus of control, and affectivity from
 Robinson et al. / WORKAHOLISM AND MARITAL DISAFFECTION
the husbands’ perspective. The following research questions
guided this study:
1. What relationships exist among workaholism, marital
disaffection, locus of control, positive affect, and negative
affect?
2. Do the subscales of workaholism, compulsive tendency,
controlling behavior, impaired communication, inability
to delegate, and self-worth predict marital disaffection after
controlling for locus of control, positive affect, and nega-
tive affect?
METHOD
Participants
From the membership list of the American Counseling
Association, 1,000 were randomly selected. Contact with
the selected respondents was attempted through a series of
two waves of mailing. A total of 376 surveys were returned,
resulting in a 37.6% return rate. Respondents who were
never married or whose spouse did not work were excluded
from the analyses, resulting in a total of 272 participants
included in all analyses.
The male participants had an average age of 49.3 years
(SD = 9.5), ranging from 26 to 69 years. Respondents had
been married an average of 17.6 years (SD = 10.7), ranging
from less than 1 year to 40 years. The respondents had an
average of 19.6 (SD = 3.1, range 16-24) years of education.
The ethnicity of the respondents was predominantly White
(n = 244, 89.7%), followed by African American (n = 9,
3.3%), Hispanic (n = 7, 2.6%), Asian (n = 3, 1.1%), and
Other (n = 7, 2.6%). The spouses of respondents had an
average age of 46.8 (SD = 9.2) and had an average of 17.0
(SD = 2.8) years of education. The spouses averaged 41.0
(SD = 10.5, range 10-65) hours at work per week.
Instruments
Work Addiction Risk Test (WART). The WART (Robinson,
1999) is a 25-item inventory that measures addictive work-
ing patterns. Respondents rate items on a 4-point scale rang-
ing from never true (1) to always true (4) according to how
well each item describes their work habits. Six scores can be
calculated from the WART, five subscale scores and an over-
all score. The five subscales are (a) compulsive tendencies,
(b) control, (c) impaired communication, (d) inability to del-
egate, and (e) self-worth. The subscale scores are calculated
by averaging the item values within each subscale. The over-
all score is calculated by summing across all the items; the
higher the score, the greater the level of workaholic behav-
iors. Several studies have examined the reliability of scores
from the WART. In one study, the test-retest reliability coef-
ficients was .85, and Cronbach’s alpha was .85 (Robinson,
Post, & Khakee, 1992). In another study using a sample
of 442 respondents from diverse groups, the split-half relia-
bility was .85 (Robinson & Post, 1995). In assessing the
215
validity of scores from the WART, the scales demonstrated
face validity: overdoing, self-worth, control or perfection-
ism, intimacy, and future reference or mental preoccupation
(Robinson & Post, 1994). Twenty psychotherapists criti-
cally examined the 25 WART items for content validity.
They were instructed to identify the 25 items from a list of
35 test items that most accurately measured workaholism
(Robinson & Phillips, 1995). The authors reported high align-
ment of the items for the domain of workaholism. Concurrent
validity was investigated by correlating the scores on the
WART with four scales on the Jenkins Activity Survey. The
correlation coefficients between the WART and four scales
ranged from .20 to .50 (Robinson, 1996). Scores on the
WART also correlated .40 with generalized anxiety on the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Construct validity of scores
from the WART was examined by analyzing the underlying
dimensions of the WART and investigating the accuracy of
the WART scores to discriminate between workaholics and
a control group (Flowers & Robinson, 2002). The results
suggest that workaholism, as measured by the WART, is
not a unidimensional construct. Five subscales were identi-
fied, and the WART scores produced an 88.5% correct clas-
sification rate.
Marital Disaffection Scale (MDS). The MDS (Kayser,
1996; Kersten, 1990) is a 21-item inventory that assesses the
components of emotional estrangement in marriage. The scale
measures the loss of emotional attachment, decline in caring,
and loss of desire for emotional intimacy with one’s partner.
Respondents rate items on a 4-point scale ranging from not at
all true (1) to very true (4). Eleven reversal items were recoded
in the direction of higher scores meaning higher martial disaf-
fection. Scores on the MDS can range from 21 to 84. A con-
current validity study indicated that there was a statistically
significant positive relationship (r = .93, p < .001) between the
MDS and Snyder and Regts’ (1982) scale of disaffection.
Moreover, the MDS correlated inversely with general ques-
tions on martial happiness (r = –.56) and marital closeness
(r = –.86). Internal reliability, as measured using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha, was .97. A significant correlation was also
found between the respondents’ overall level of disaffection
and their participation in counseling (r = .61, p < .001).
Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale. The Nowicki-
Strickland Locus of Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland,
1973) is considered to be the best general measure of inter-
nal or external locus of control from grade three through col-
lege. A total of 40 questions are answered either yes or no
and the respondents’ perceptions are examined concerning
the control they believe they have over events in their lives.
Items are scored in an external direction; thus, higher scores
indicate an external locus of control, and lower scores indi-
cate an internal locus of control. The scale was revised for
use with adults by deleting items about parents, leaving
26 questions. Split-half reliability for the scale was .81, and
test-retest reliability was .71 for high school students.
216 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006
TABLE 1
Coefficient Alphas, Correlation Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations for the WART, Marital
Disaffection, Locus of Control, Positive and Negative Affects, and Hours Worked per Week
WART Disaff
WART .90**
Disaff .36** .68**
LOC –.03** .07**
Positive –.08** –.10**
Negative .13** .19**
Hours worked .18** .02**
M 49.63 41.71
SD 10.85 9.54
NOTE: Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal. WART is Work Addiction Risk Test. Disaff is marital disaffection. LOC is locus of control.
a. Only 1 item in the scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Moreover, construct validity was investigated between the
Nowicki-Strickland adult scales and the Rotter Scale and
was found to be significant in two studies with college
students (r = .61, p < .01; r = .38, p < .01; Nowicki &
Strickland, 1973).
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Positive
affect reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic,
active, and alert. High positive affect scores indicate a state
of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engage-
ment, whereas low positive affect scores are characterized by
sadness and lethargy (Watson et al., 1988). In contrast, nega-
tive affect is a general dimension of subjective distress and
unpleasurable engagement that subsumes a variety of aver-
sive mood states, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt,
fear, and nervousness, with low negative affect being a state
of calmness and serenity (Watson et al., 1988).
Watson et al. (1988) developed the PANAS as a simple and
short method of measuring positive affects and negative
affects. Respondents are asked to rate how they feel on aver-
age on 20 descriptors, 10 positive and 10 negative. A 5-point
rating scale was used to assess each descriptor: very slightly
or not at all (1), a little (2), moderately (3), quite a bit (4), and
very much (5). Watson et al. (1988) reported alpha reliability
coefficients ranging from .84 to .90 and test-retest reliability
coefficients ranging from .39 to .71. The intercorrelation
between the two scales, positive affect and negative affect,
ranged from –.12 to –.23. Principal factor analyses suggested
two large factors, which accounted for 75.4% of the common
variance. Convergent correlations ranged from .76 to .92, and
the discriminant coefficients had values close to zero.
Procedures
Each prospective respondent was mailed a letter contain-
ing the general nature of the study with an invitation to par-
ticipate, a consent form, demographic form, and instrument
package. The demographic form included items that asked the
respondents to identify their and their spouse’s year of birth,
race, number of years with current spouse, and number of
LOC Positive Negative Hours Worked
.40*
–.02* .84**
.12* –.19** .72**
.01* .01** –.04** —a
5.07 3.83 1.82 41.04
3.24 0.50 0.60 10.47
years of education. Respondents were asked to assess their
current or most recent spouse’s work habits (using the
WART). In addition, they were asked to rate their current or
most recent marriage in terms of emotional closeness toward
spouse (using the MDS). Next the participants were asked to
complete the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale on
themselves and the positive affect or negative affect as mea-
sured by the PANAS. A business reply envelope was pro-
vided for return of the completed material. Two weeks after
the initial mailing, postcards were mailed to thank those par-
ticipants who returned the questionnaire and remind those
who had not returned the questionnaire to do so.
RESULTS
To examine the relationships among the variables of
workaholism, martial disaffection, locus of control, negative
affect, and positive affect, correlational analyses were
conducted. The correlation coefficients, coefficient alphas,
means, and standard deviations for WART, martial disaffec-
tion, locus of control, negative affect, positive affect, and
spouse’s hours worked per week are reported in Table 1. The
reliability coefficients (see diagonal of the matrix in Table 1)
ranged from .40 (locus of control) to .90 (WART).
Workaholism was positively related to marital disaffection
(r = .38, p < .01), negative affect (r = .13, p < .05), and
number of hours worked per week (r = .18, p < .01). Negative
affect was positively related to marital disaffection (r = .19,
p < .01) and external locus of control (r = .12, p < .05) and
inversely related to positive affect (r = –.13, p < .01). No
other statistically significant relationships were found.
The correlation coefficients for the relationships between
the subscales of workaholism and marital disaffection, locus
of control, positive affects and negative affects, and hours
worked per week, and coefficient alpha, means, and standard
deviations for workaholism subscales are reported in Table 2.
Coefficient alpha for the workaholism subscales ranged from
.53 to .85. All the workaholism subscales were positively
 Robinson et al. / WORKAHOLISM AND MARITAL DISAFFECTION
TABLE 2
Correlation Coefficients Between the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) Subscales
and Marital Disaffection, LOC, Positive, and Negative Affects, and Hours Worked
per Week and WART Subscales Coefficient Alpha, Means, and Standard Deviations
Compul Control
Disaff .19** .36**
LOC –.09 < .00
Positive affect –.03 –.10
Negative affect .08 .21**
Hours worked .23 .09**
Coefficient α .84 .85
M 2.08 2.02
SD 0.56 0.55
NOTE: LOC is locus of control. Compul is compulsive tendencies. Impair is impaired communication. Delegate is inability to delegate.
a. Only 1 item in the scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
related to marital disaffection, ranging from .15 to .38. Locus
of control was related to impaired communication (r = .12,
p < .05); positive affect was inversely related to impaired com-
munication (r = –.12, p < .05); negative affect was positively
related to control (r = .21, p < .01), impaired communication
(r = .23, p < .01), and self-worth (r = .14, p < .01); and hours
worked per week was positively related to compulsive behav-
ior (r = .23, p < .01) and self-worth (r = .13, p < .05).
To examine the unique contribution of workaholism in the
explanation of marital disaffection, a hierarchical multiple
regression analysis was performed. Variables that explain
marital disaffection were entered in two steps. In Step 1,
marital disaffection was the criterion variable and (a) locus of
control, (b) positive affect, and (c) negative affect were the
predictor variables. In Step 2, the subscales of the WART
were entered into the Step 1 equation. Before the hierarchi-
cal multiple regression analysis was performed, the predictor
variables were examined for collinearity. Results of the vari-
ance inflation factor (all less than 2.0) and collinearity toler-
ance (all greater than .76) suggest that the estimated βs are
well established in the following regression model.
The results of Step 1 indicated that the variance
accounted for (R2) with the first three predictor variables
(i.e., locus of control, positive affects, and negative affects)
equaled .03 (adjusted R2 = .02), which was significantly dif-
ferent from zero, F(3, 297) = 3.08, p < .05. Negative affect
was the only statistically significant predictor variable, β = .13,
p < .05. In Step 2, the five subscales of the WART were
entered into the regression equation. The change in variance
accounted for (∆R2) was equal to .17, resulting in the total
variance accounted for equal to .20, which was significantly
different from zero, F(8, 292) = 3.08, p < .05. The unstan-
dardized regression coefficients (B) and intercept, the
standardized regression coefficients (β), and semipartial
correlations (sri) for the full model are reported in Table 3.
Only two of the subscales of workaholism contributed
217
WART Subscales
Impair Delegate Self-Worth
.38** .16** .15*
.12* .02 –.04
–.12* –.03 .09
.23** –.03 .14*
.06** .09 .13*
.62 —a .53
1.60 2.50 2.37
0.47 0.66 0.60
significantly to the explanation of marital disaffection,
namely control and impaired communication, with semi-
partial correlations of .18 and .21, respectively.
DISCUSSION
The findings of the present study of husbands of worka-
holics support previous research in which women who identi-
fied their husbands as workaholics also reported greater
marital disaffection and less positive feelings toward their
spouse (Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001). The correlational
findings in the present study between workaholism and mari-
tal disaffection, negative affect, and number of hours worked
per week suggest that the strength and cohesion of a marriage
is associated with the presence or absence of excessive work-
ing on the part of one’s spouse. Moreover, the two most
significant features of workaholism relating to marital dis-
affection were impaired communication and overcontrolling
behaviors, aspects of a marriage that can lead to problems in
marital cohesion (Robinson, Flowers, et al., 2001). These
findings corroborate what marital experts have contended for
years: that control, as exemplified through struggles in
marriage (Hendrix, 1988) and spousal withdrawal (Gottman,
1999), is an indicator of marital disintegration and separation.
There were differences between the findings from this
study and earlier research of wives of workaholics. First,
wives of workaholics reported higher levels of external
locus of control than did wives of nonworkaholics. In this
study, there was no relationship between workaholic tenden-
cies of spouses and husbands’ external locus of control.
This difference reflects the mixed findings regarding the
relationship between these two variables. Camp and Ganong
(1997) attributed the differences to possibly conceptual and
measurement problems in this body of research. The low
to moderate coefficient alpha of the locus of control scores
in this study suggests that there was too much random
218 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006

TABLE 3
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients (B) and Intercept, the Standardized
β), Semipartial Correlations (sri), t Values, and p Values
Regression Coefficients (β
for Variables as Predictor of Marital Disaffection
Work Addiction Risk Test Subscales Zero-Order r
Compul Control Impair Delegate B β sr
LOC 0.08 .03 .03
Positive affect –0.72 –.04 –.04
Negative affect 1.18 .08 .07
Compulsive –1.52 –.09 –.07
Control .58** 4.15 .25** .18
Impair .45** .54** 5.28 .27** .21
Delegate .25** .21** .21** 1.28 .09 .09
Self-worth .38** .46** .28** .09** –0.88 –.06 –.05

Intercept 27.17
R2 .20

NOTE: LOC is locus of control. Compul is compulsive tendencies. Impair is impaired communication. Delegate is inability to delegate.
**p < .01.

variability in this measure for this population of respondents.
The development of a more accurate measure of locus of
control for this population may make the measure more sen-
sitive to potential relationships with other variables. A more
context-specific locus of control measure may be more
suited to help reveal the relationship between marital satis-
faction and locus of control (Miller et al., 1986).
Second, there was no relationship between positive affect
and workaholism found in this study; neither was there a rela-
tionship between positive affect and marital disaffection,
as in the previous study examining wives of workaholics
(Robinson, Carroll, et al., 2001). Negative affect was found
positively correlated to workaholism and marital disaffection.
However, findings in this study corroborate with the literature
that shows that negative affect was a predictor of marital dis-
affection (e.g., Davila et al., 1998; Watson et al., 2000).
The findings presented here support a growing body of
literature that suggests that the strength and cohesion of a
marriage is associated with the presence or absence of
workaholism (Carroll & Robinson, 2000; Robinson, Carroll,
et al., 2001; Robinson, Flowers, et al., 2001). Previous inves-
tigations indicate that workaholism, like alcoholism, may
take its toll on family functioning. It has been reported that
workaholics described a breakdown in their family’s func-
tioning as the level of workaholism increased (Robinson &
Post, 1995), and workaholics reported greater health prob-
lems than did control groups (Spence & Robbins, 1992).
IMPLICATIONS
Workaholism and marital relationships continues to be one
of the most ignored areas of clinical and empirical research.
Well-meaning clinicians compound the problem by minimizing
the negative effects that workaholic behaviors have on a
relationship. This tendency is partly because of cultural
maxims that extol the positive features of workaholism
while failing to cite the negative aspects (Robinson &
Chase, 2001). The results of this study underscore the criti-
cal need for greater clinical awareness of marital problems
associated with workaholism and the need to treat it as a
marital issue and not an individual problem. We recommend
that marriage and family therapists screen for the presences
of workaholism, just as they would alcoholism.
Expectations of change in workaholics require that family
members who have built patterns of reactions to their loved
one’s workaholism be prepared to change. Family practi-
tioners should be prepared for resistance on both sides.
Complaints and cynicism about the workaholic’s constant
working and family absence often become habitual. As the
workaholic attempts to reconnect to family, some resistance
to integration may be present for some family members.
LIMITATIONS
It should be kept in mind that correlation does not imply
causation. The results from this correlational study, as with
any correlational study, do not ensure a causal relationship.
Although correlational findings are necessary, it is not suffi-
cient for a causal relationship. Research that examines
temporal sequencing of workaholic behaviors and marital
disaffection would give greater insight into cause and effect
relationships.
The information available on workaholism is based pre-
dominantly on self-report data, namely self-administered
questionnaires or face-to-face interviews with convenience
samples. These limited approaches, although useful for build-
ing a knowledge base, have led to a need for more sampling
and methodological specificity. It is important that future
 Robinson et al. / WORKAHOLISM AND MARITAL DISAFFECTION
research studies be well planned and include randomized,
representative samples. A multimethod approach (e.g.,
Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998) to data collec-
tion in which observational techniques are used in conjunc-
tion with the traditional self-report techniques will yield
more reliable information and lead to a better understanding
of workaholic family functioning. Moreover, it is essential
that future inquiries employ a systems-oriented approach and
assess perceptions and behaviors of spouses and children of
workaholics.
Because of the return rate (37%), there is potential for
sampling bias. Because the survey was anonymous, there was
no attempt to contact nonrespondents; therefore, it was not
possible to evaluate differences between respondents and
nonrespondents. Furthermore, the sampling frame used for
this study, males in the American Counseling Association,
represents a highly educated group of males. The findings of
this study may not represent those for less-educated males.
Also, the findings may not represent minority groups because
the sample was predominantly White. Given these limitations,
the findings in this study may not generalize to other socio-
economic or racial backgrounds or to same-sex partners.
It is critical that researchers examining family dynamics
give more attention to the subject of workaholism to achieve
a better understanding of this condition. The findings
presented here are sufficient evidence to warrant further
research on workaholism and its impact on marital adjust-
ment factors to determine more clearly the risks and conse-
quences of spousal workaholic habits.
REFERENCES
Bugaighis, M. A., Schumm, W. R., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1983).
Locus of control and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology,
114, 275-279.
Camp, P. L., & Ganong, L. H. (1997). Locus of control and marital satis-
faction in long-term marriages. Families in Society, 78, 624-631.
Carroll, J. J. (2001). Spouses of high-performing men: A profile of marital
adjustment and psychological outcomes. In B. E. Robinson & N. Chase
(Eds.), High performing families: Causes, consequences, and clinical solu-
tions (pp. 23-40). Washington, DC: American Counseling Association.
Carroll, J. J., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification
among adults as related to parental workaholism and alcoholism. The
Family Journal, 8, 360-367.
Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personal-
ity matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal
negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 326-336.
Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. (1998). Negative affectivity as a
mediator of the association between adult attachment and marital satis-
faction. Personal Relationships, 5, 467-484.
Doherty, W. J. (1981). Locus of control differences and marital dissatisfac-
tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 369-377.
Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors
of marital satisfaction. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy,
3, 151-192.
Flowers, C. P., & Robinson, B. (2002). A structural and discriminant analy-
sis of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 62, 517-526.
219
Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of
a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity,
and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564-574.
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work.
New York: Crown.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting
marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5-22.
Hendrix, H. (1988). Getting the love you want: A guide for couples.
New York: Henry Holt.
Herbst, A. C. (1996, November). Married to the job. McCall’s Magazine,
pp. 130-134.
Kayser, K. (1996). The Marital Disaffection Scale: An inventory for assess-
ing emotional estrangement in marriage. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 24, 83-88.
Kersten, K. K. (1990). The process of marital disaffection: Interventions at
various stages. Family Relations, 39, 257-265.
Miller, P. C., Lefcourt, H. M., Holmes, J. G., Ware, E. E., & Saleh, W. E.
(1986). Marital locus of control and marital problem solving. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 161-169.
Navarrette, S. (1998). An empirical study of adult children of worka-
holics: Psychological functioning and intergenerational transmis-
sion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Graduate Institute,
Westwood.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. (1973). A locus of control scale for children.
Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154.
Olsen, S. R., Martin, P., & Halverson, C. F. (1999). Personality, marital
relationship, and parenting in two generations of mothers. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 457-476.
Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human
Sexuality, 20, 89-96.
Robinson, B. E. (1996). Concurrent validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test
as a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 79, 1313-1314.
Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for worka-
holics, their partners and children, and the clinicians who treat them.
New York: New York University Press.
Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Children of workaholics: What practitioners need
to know. Journal of the Child and Youth Care, 12, 75-85.
Robinson, B. E. (1998c). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical implications for
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 35, 260-268.
Robinson, B. E. (1998d). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 63-73.
Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of
a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
88, 199-210.
Robinson, B. E. (2000a). Adult children of workaholics: Clinical and
empirical research with implications for family therapists. Journal of
Family Psychotherapy, 11, 15-26.
Robinson, B. E. (2000b). A typology of workaholism with implications for
counselors. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 21, 34-48.
Robinson, B. E. (2000c). Workaholism: Bridging the gap between work-
place, sociocultural, and family research. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 37, 31-46.
Robinson, B. E. (2001). Workaholism and family functioning: A profile of
familial relationships, psychological outcomes, and research considera-
tions. Contemporary Family Research, 23, 123-135.
Robinson, B. E., & Carroll, J. (1999). Assessing the offspring of worka-
holics: The children of workaholics screening test. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 88, 1127-1134.
Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2001). Marital estrangement,
positive affect, and locus of control among spouses of workaholics and
spouses of nonworkaholics: A national study. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 29, 397-410.
Robinson, B. E., & Chase, N. (2001). High-performing families: Causes,
consequences, and clinical solutions. Washington, DC: American
Counseling Association.
220 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / July 2006
Robinson, B. E., & Flowers, C. (2004). Symptoms of workaholism: Pop
psychology or private pain? In R. H. Coombs (Ed), Handbook of Addic-
tive Disorders. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Robinson, B. E., Flowers, C., & Carroll, J. (2001). Work stress and mar-
riage: A theoretical model examining the relationship between worka-
holism and marital cohesion. International Journal of Stress Management,
8(2), 165-175.
Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of workaholics: Self-
concept, locus of control, anxiety, and depression. The American Journal
of Family Therapy, 26, 223-238.
Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content
validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77,
657-658.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1994). Validity of the Work Addition Risk Test.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 337-338.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Split-half reliability of the Work
Addiction Risk Test: Development of a measure of workaholism.
Psychological Reports, 76, 1226.
Robinson, B. E., Post, P., & Khakee, J. F. (1992). Test-retest reliability of
the Work Addiction Risk Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 926.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external con-
trol of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.
Sabatelli, R. M. (1986). Locus of control, locus of control differences, and
quality of relationship in married dyads. Psychological Reports, 58,
939-945.
Smolen, R., & Spiegel, D. (1987). Marital locus of control as a modifier of
the relationship between the frequency of provocation by spouse and
marital satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 70-80.
Snyder, D. K., & Regts, J. M. (1982). Factor scales for assessing marital
disharmony and disaffection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 50, 736-743.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measure-
ment, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1),
160-178.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition
to experience negative emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96,
465-490.
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, 1063-1070.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality
and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships:
Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality,
68, 413-449.
Weeks, D. (1995, June). Cooling off your office affair. NorthWest Airlines
World Traveler Magazine, pp. 59-62.
Bryan E. Robinson is professor emeritus at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte.
Claudia Flowers is an associate professor in educational research
at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Kok-Mun Ng is an assistant professor in the Department of
Counseling at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.