APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2008, 57 (1), 109–127

doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00270.x

Workaholism as Discretionary Time Investment at

SNIR
Original
WORKAHOLISM
and
Blackwell
Oxford,
Applied
APPS
©
0269-994X
xxx
XXX
56 Article
ZOHAR
International
2007 UK
PsychologyandLtd
Publishing TIMEfor
Association INVESTMENT
Applied Psychology, 2007

Work: An Experience-Sampling Study

Raphael Snir
The Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Israel

Dov Zohar*
Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

Adopting an operational definition of workaholism as discretionary invest-

ment of considerable time at work, the purpose of the present study was to
test hypotheses regarding the cognitive aspect of workaholism, as well as the
positive and negative/addictive views of this construct. The study employed an
experience-sampling method (ESM), using a sample of 65 full-time employees
who completed the ESM forms at four random times during the day for one
week. Results indicated that workaholism was associated with continued
cognitive engagement with work, accompanied by a preference for work over
leisure activity and higher positive affect during work activity than during
leisure activity. No significant differences were found between workaholics
and non-workaholics with regard to the likelihood of performing work-related
activities during leisure activity, or in the levels of physical discomfort and
negative affect during the weekend. These results highlight the utility of an
operational framework for studying the variety of workaholism correlates.
Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

A partir d’une définition opérationnelle de l’addiction au travail comme étant

un investissement sans contrôle d’un temps considérable consacré au travail,
cette recherche s’est donné comme objectif de mettre à l’épreuve des hypothèses
relatives à la dimension cognitive de l’addiction au travail, ainsi que les aspects
positifs et négatifs (addictifs) de ce concept. Cette recherche a exploité la
méthode de l’échantillonnage des expériences (ESM) à partir d’un échantillon
composé de 65 salariés à plein-temps qui ont rempli la feuille de recueil des
données quatre fois par jour au hasard pendant une semaine. Les résultats ont
montré que l’addiction au travail était liée à un engagement cognitif perma-
nent vis-à-vis du travail, associé à une plus forte attirance pour le travail que
pour les loisirs et à un état affectif plus fortement positif lors du travail qu’à
l’occasion des activités de loisirs. On n’a pas trouvé de différences significatives
entre les drogués du travail et les autres en ce qui concerne la probabilité de

* Address for correspondence: Dov Zohar, Faculty of Management, Technion—Israel

Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel. E-mail: dzohar@tx.technion.ac.il

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
110 SNIR AND ZOHAR

réaliser des activités relevant du travail pendant les loisirs, ou dans le niveau
d’inconfort physique et le poids des affects négatifs pendant le week-end. Ces
résultats montrent l’utilité d’un schéma opérationnel dans l’étude de la diversité
des phénomènes reliés à l’addiction au travail. Les implications théoriques et
pratiques sont examinées.

INTRODUCTION
Some individuals commit significantly more time and energy to their work
than peers or cohorts. Such over-commitment has been labeled Workahol-
ism (Seybold & Salomone, 1994). The study of workaholism initially
resulted in a large volume of clinical and anecdotal data (e.g. Fassel, 1990;
Garfield, 1987; Kiechel, 1989a, 1989b; Killinger, 1991; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988;
Machlowitz, 1980; Waddell, 1993), leading reviewers to lament the lack of
conceptual and methodological rigor (e.g. Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997).
Recent studies adopted better designs, resulting in quantitative data amenable
to statistical analysis (e.g. Burke, 1999; Burke, Richardsen, & Mortinussen,
2004; Flowers & Robinson, 2002; Harpaz & Snir, 2003; McMillan, Brady,
O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002). Yet, despite the common use of the term work-
aholism, there is still little consensus about its meaning and correlates beyond
its core operational element: a substantial investment of time and effort at work.
Some writers have focused on the deleterious aspects of workaholism
(Cherrington, 1980; Killinger, 1991; Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1989;
Schaef & Fassel, 1988). For instance, Robinson (1989) defines workaholism
as a progressive disorder of work addiction, which leads to family disinte-
gration and increased inability to manage work habits and life domains.
Rooted in this addiction paradigm, one of the earliest measures of work-
aholism is the 25-item Work Addiction Risk Test (WART; Robinson, 1989).
Workaholism, as measured by WART, includes five dimensions: Compulsive
Tendencies, Control, Impaired Communication/Self-Absorption, Inability to
Delegate, and Self-Worth (Flowers & Robinson, 2002). While Robinson had
used WART quite extensively, its external validity remains unknown, because
most samples included students, members of Workaholics Anonymous,
or psychotherapists as expert observers (e.g. Flowers & Robinson, 2002;
Robinson, 1996, 1999; Robinson & Phillips, 1995; Robinson & Post, 1994, 1995).
Other writers, however, view workaholism more positively, as involving a
pleasurable engagement at work (Cantarow, 1979; Machlowitz, 1980; Sprankle
& Ebel, 1987). For example, Machlowitz (1980: 16) conducted interviews
with more than 100 workaholics and found that “as a group, workaholics are
surprisingly happy. They are doing exactly what they love—work—and they
can’t seem to get enough of it.”
Spence and Robbins (1992) base their definition of workaholism on three
attitudinal properties, i.e. work involvement, drivenness to work, and work

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 111
enjoyment. High scores on work involvement and drivenness and low scores
on work enjoyment thus define workaholism. This profile contrasts with
Work Enthusiasm, defined as high involvement and enjoyment and low
drivenness. Based on this conceptualisation, Spence and Robbins (1992)
developed the three-scale, 25-item Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT), which
is currently the most widely used measure in workaholism research. Despite
the expected polarity between the two profiles, WorkBAT data indicate that
the largest sub-group of workaholics, identified as Enthusiastic Workaholism,
scores highly on all three factors (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Such data
suggest a state of affairs akin to personality measurement whereby any
factorial combination is possible, resulting in a different interpretation for
each combination. Thus, when work drivenness coexists with work enjoyment
and involvement, it reflects a situation whereby one factor moderates the
others, resulting in personally acceptable over-investment at work despite its
compulsory or driven nature. If, however, high enjoyment and involvement
were accompanied by low drivenness, it would have turned into enthusiasm
(Spence & Robbins, 1992).
There is some research supporting the psychometric properties of this
scale (e.g. Burke, 1999, 2001; Spence & Robbins, 1992), although there
has also been some controversy over its factorial structure (McMillan et al.,
2002). Regardless of psychometric properties, it is noteworthy that Work-
BAT is derived from three attitudinal constructs, which resemble some well-
established concepts such as work centrality or job involvement and job
satisfaction. At the same time, it does not measure the most conspicuous
aspect of workaholism, i.e. long work hours. Thus, one might report high
involvement and drivenness while only working regular hours. Qualifying
such an individual as a workaholic would be erroneous.
Such considerations have led Snir and Zohar (2000) to define workahol-
ism as discretionary investment of considerable time at work, i.e. not stem-
ming from external demands. Such an operational definition offers two
advantages. First, it incorporates the core behavioral element of workaholism
without viewing it a priori as a positive or negative behavior pattern. Con-
sequently, it is possible to test positive and negative correlates without risking
criterion contamination. Second, by identifying (and excluding) external
demands as a possible causal agent, this definition adopts the interactionist
perspective (Pervin, 1989), suggesting that both person and situation factors
are relevant for understanding workaholism (Snir, 1998).
The amount of time spent at work could be affected by a variety of
external factors such as extrinsic rewards (Brett & Stroh, 2003); work–leisure
trade-off (Killingsworth, 1993); social contagion (Brett & Stroh, 2003);
organisational culture (Porter, 1996); demands of employers (Maume &
Bellas, 2001; Clarkberg & Moen, 2001); holding a professional or managerial
position (Jacobs & Gerson, 1997); economic slump (Kanai & Wakabayashi,

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
112 SNIR AND ZOHAR

2004); economic recovery (Babbar & Aspelin, 1998); labor-market conditions

(Alesina, Glaeser, & Sacerdote, 2005); and the pressures of globalisation
(Blair-Loy & Jacobs, 2003). Identifying and ruling out all of these factors
would make the measurement of workaholism quite cumbersome. However,
according to the dynamic interactionist perspective (Ickes, Snyder, & Garcia,
1997), people actively gravitate toward some situations and avoid others
such that the choice of situations reflects personal identities such as atti-
tudes, traits, and self-concepts. Furthermore, different organisations attract,
select, and retain different kinds of people (Schneider, 1987; Schneider,
Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Over time, the processes of self-selection, employer
recruitment selection, and socialisation and reward systems enable work-
aholics to play out their tendencies more easily in some organisations than in
others (Porter, 1996). As Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997: 295) point out,
“individuals who continue to work many hours and think about work exces-
sively are appropriately viewed as workaholics when other organisations that
might hire them would not require such devotion”. Practically, therefore, it
is possible to rule out only the proximal external factors associated with
financial pressures in order to derive an operational measure of workaholism,
defined as discretionary investment of considerable time at work.
Utilising this operational definition, the purpose of this study was to test
predictions regarding the cognitive aspect of workaholism, as well as the
positive and negative/addictive views of this phenomenon. Such testing examines
the utility of an operational framework for workaholism research as a means
for exploring its meaning beyond the confines of attitude-based perspectives.
In order to do so, we used the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) that allows
studying the subjective experience of individuals interacting in their natural
environments (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). ESM combines the ecological
validity of naturalistic behavioral observation with the precision of scaled
questionnaire measures. By sampling experience the moment it occurs, the
method avoids the potential distortions associated with the use of daily or
weekly retrospective diaries (Hektner & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).

Thinking about Work Issues

Work is the pivotal element of the self-concept and personal life of work-
aholics (Machlowitz, 1980). One cognitive expression involves persistent
thinking about work issues. Assuming two primary life domains, i.e. work
and leisure, such thinking extends over both, e.g. while spending time at
home, during social occasions, and on weekends and vacations (Engstrom
& Juroe; 1979, Fassel, 1990; Killinger, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980; Scott et al.,
1997). Notably, such cognitive engagement is not self-evident, given research
indicating the preponderance of personal thoughts during work, leading to
the following hypotheses:

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 113
H1a: Operationally defined workaholics, as compared to non-workaholics,
will have a greater likelihood of thinking about work.

H1b: Operationally defined workaholics, as compared to non-workaholics,

will have a greater likelihood of thinking about work during leisure activity.

Positive Correlates of Workaholism

The adoption of an operational framework allows testing of the positive and
negative correlates of workaholism. As noted above, despite apparent polarity,
the WorkBAT data indicate that both aspects often co-exist, moderating
each other’s effect. Methodologically, this allows testing of positive and
negative correlates on operationally defined workaholics without classifying
them beforehand as positive or negative (which would have led to criterion
contamination due to overlap between predictor and outcome variables).
One relevant correlate concerns the motivational focus for considerable
investment at work, i.e. whether such investment follows from self-set goals
or from uncontrollable internal pressure or external demands. Preferred or
self-selected activity follows from controllable motives and personal priorities
rather than from uncontrollable endogenous factors associated with addic-
tion or exogenous factors such as job or financial demands. In other words,
preferred activity is an expression of ego-syntonic motives, which are consistent
with one’s fundamental beliefs and self-concept. Ego-dystonic motives, on the
other hand, are inconsistent or unacceptable in terms of one’s self-concept even
when they overpower one’s action. Hence, if work-related activity is consistent
with one’s interests and self-set goals, it will be preferred over leisure activity.
However, it is unlikely to be preferred if its primary antecedents are a com-
pulsive drive to work or obligation. Although the literature allows adoption
of controllable or uncontrollable conceptualisations of workaholism,
adopting the former as a possible point of reference suggests that considerable
investment at work will follow from a preference, leading to the following
hypothesis:

H2: Operationally defined workaholics, as compared to non-workaholics,

will have a greater likelihood of preferring work over leisure activity.

Work requires purposeful, goal-directed activity. Such purposefulness

requires the allocation of attention, or concentration. Concentration implies
a separation from, rather than a connection to, everything and everybody
in the immediate environment unless it relates to the focal task and objective
(Rohrlich, 1980). Emotionally, such a cognitive state is being experienced as
Positive Affect (PA), which signifies a subjective state of high energy, con-
centration, and engagement (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Therefore,
positive affect is likely to be experienced more frequently during purposeful

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
114 SNIR AND ZOHAR

work-related activity than leisure activity. Furthermore, it is likely to intensify

with increasing importance of work in one’s life. Cantarow (1979: 58) stresses
that workaholics seek “passionate involvement and gratification” through work.
According to Machlowitz (1980), workaholics are intense, energetic, and
competitive. Naughton (1987) observed that workaholics demonstrate endless
energy in their work settings. Clark, McEwen, Collard, and Hickok (1993)
also report a positive correlation between workaholism and energy levels,
all of which leads to the following hypotheses:

H3a: Positive affect associated with work will be higher than that associated
with leisure activity.

H3b: Work-related positive affect will be higher for operationally defined

workaholics as compared to non-workaholics.

Negative Correlates of Workaholism

The negative correlates of workaholism largely relate to the issue of work
addiction, or the level of free choice in a person’s work habits. Addiction is
being signified by what an individual does as well as by what he/she cannot
do. A person who loves his/her work and experiences gratification through
work is not necessarily a work addict. Only if such an individual cannot
cease working even when it is socially inappropriate or personally undesired
can we call him/her a work addict (Rohrlich, 1980). Such difficulty in stopping
one’s daily work is manifested by neglect of important personal, social, and
familial interests (Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996). However, it can also be
expressed by performing work-related activities during leisure time (e.g.
initiating work-related phone calls or writing a memo during family recrea-
tion). In fact, the Work Addiction Risk Test (Robinson, 1989) includes an
item that addresses such multi-tasking. Accordingly, if workaholism is an
addiction to work, we hypothesise:

H4: Operationally defined workaholics, as compared to non-workaholics,

will have a greater likelihood of performing work-related activities during
leisure activity.

Furthermore, Porter (1996) claims that work addicts experience physical

withdrawal and anxiety upon staying away from work. Although there have
been no empirical studies of withdrawal among workaholics, clinical obser-
vations and anecdotal data suggest that some individuals experience with-
drawal symptoms during off-work periods such as mealtime, sleep, weekends,
vacations, illness, or unemployment (Killinger, 1991; Morris & Charney, 1983;
Robinson, 1989). Rohrlich (1980) suggests that such symptoms include a
range of negative affective and psychosomatic states such as anxiety, depression,

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 115
migraine, and colitis. Killinger (1991) asserts similarly that the weekend’s
tranquility might promote anxiety, depression, and irritability. Thus, an addiction
perspective would offer the following hypotheses:

H5a: Operationally defined workaholics will experience more physical dis-

comfort during the weekend than non-workaholics.

H5b: Operationally defined workaholics will experience more negative affect

during the weekend than non-workaholics.

Notably, since the easiest solution for a work addict is to work during
weekends to alleviate the pressure (Killinger, 1991), the last two hypotheses
will be tested only at those sampled time-points over the weekend in which
subjects have been engaged in a leisure activity.

METHOD

Participants
Sixty-five individuals with full-time employment participated in the study.
The sample included 43 men and 22 women; 49.2 per cent were married,
with a mean age of 36.3 years, mean level of education of 14.9 years, and
mean tenure at the present position of 7.2 years. Using a convenience sam-
pling technique, participants were recruited through intermediaries who
responded to bulletin board flyers at two universities located in a large
metropolitan area in Israel, offering nominal payments ($10) for each par-
ticipant. The participants were offered individual feedback concerning work
and non-work activity patterns, intended as the main incentive for filling the
daily ESM reports. Participants have been assured of complete anonymity
and confidentiality by means of an internal coding system.

Procedure
Prior to data collection, each participant underwent a 30-minute orientation
session covering the ESM procedure, and an explanation of items in the
ESM form. They also received their signaling device (a programmable wrist-
watch), and a booklet with 28 ESM forms (i.e. one for each sampling point).
At that time, they also completed a background questionnaire, which included
the workaholism measure. The watch (Casio 676ES Multi-Planner) was
pre-programmed to sound at four random times a day between noon and
10.00 pm over the following week (altogether 28 signals). This week had to
be a typical week, which includes five 9-hour workdays and a 2-day weekend
according to Israel’s labor regulations. The only stipulation was that

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
116 SNIR AND ZOHAR

consecutive signals must be separated by 60 minutes or more. The upper limit

of daily sampling (i.e. 10.00 pm) was based on the assumption that work-
aholics tend to finish their workday later than non-workaholics. After the
seventh day, a member of the research team met each participant to collect
the watch and ESM booklet. ESM forms that were completed more than
20 minutes after the programmed signal had sounded were excluded from the
final analysis. Data from participants who failed to complete at least 75 per
cent of the 28 forms were also excluded from the final analysis. The average
response rate to signals was 93.8 per cent, and average response time was
6.9 min. after the signal sounded. No significant correlation was found
between total daily working hours and the number of missing responses,
discounting the possibility that workaholics are more prone to missing data
due to their busy schedule.

Measures
Workaholism. Using self-reported time investment at work as behavio-
ral indicator (i.e. total number of working hours in a typical workday,
including work taken home), the criterion for workaholism was defined as
one standard deviation (SD) above the regional average (M = 9.6 hours/day,
SD = 1.9; Snir, 1998). Thus, working 11.5 hours/day served as the cut-off
criterion, with people below that criterion classified as non-workaholics
(N = 46). The financial needs index is similar to that used by George and Brief
(1990). Respondents who were single or married with a working spouse were
assigned an initial score of 0, whereas respondents who were married with
a non-working spouse were assigned an initial score of 1. The final score for
a respondent was calculated by adding the number of children aged 24 and
under to the initial score. In addition, respondents were asked directly
whether they had to work overtime due to financial needs. Respondents
whose financial needs index was higher than the regional average (M = 1.50,
SD = 1.45), and who also reported financial pressures, were classified as
having high financial needs, whereas the others were classified as having low
financial needs. No significant correlation was found between daily working
hours and financial needs, allowing classification of the high-investment
participants (N = 19) as workaholics.
The validity of classification was assessed in two ways. First, respondents
were also asked to indicate the hours they typically arrive and leave work
(excluding commuting time), and how much time they typically spend work-
ing at home. A comparison between the direct and indirect time investment
reports resulted in highly similar distributions and strong correlations
(M1 = 10.30, SD1 = 2.19; M2 = 10.50, SD2 = 2.20; r = .96, p < .001 where 1 =
direct, 2 = indirect reporting). Secondly, participants were asked to estimate
the working hours of their colleagues. Workaholics perceived themselves as

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 117
working more hours than their colleagues do (M = 2.58, SD = 2.33), in
contrast to the non-workaholics who did not see a difference (M = 0.17, SD
= 1.51). The perceived participant–colleagues difference was thus significantly
larger for workaholics (t = 4.79, df = 58, p < .001). This is also manifested
by the percentage of people within each group who perceived a difference
greater than an hour, i.e. 77.7 per cent of the workaholics as compared to
only 30.9 per cent of the non-workaholics. Finally, the two groups (i.e. the
46 non-workaholics and 19 workaholics) did not differ in terms of age,
tenure, and occupational category (i.e. professionals and managers vs. clerical,
sales, and service workers).

ESM Forms. The first part of the form included two items concerning
the time the alarm sounded and the time the ESM form was actually com-
pleted. The second part of the form included six questions: (1) Main activity—
what was the main activity you were doing? (2) Additional activities—what
additional activities were you doing, if any? (3) Thinking—what were you
thinking about? (4) Preferred activity—what would you have preferred to
do, if you could? (5) Social interactions—who were you with, if any? (6)
Whereabouts—where were you? For each of these questions, participants
were asked to indicate whether it was work related, family related, other
related, or irrelevant. The last option applied, for example, when one was doing
nothing, or being alone when the alarm sounded. For the purpose of the
present study, the family-related and other-related categories were combined,
resulting in a leisure or non-work category.
The remainder of the ESM form included ratings of physical and emo-
tional states at the time the alarm sounded, using a 5-point scale ranging
from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Physical or bodily state was assessed
with the following item: Do you currently feel any physical discomfort
(backache, headache, etc.)? Emotional state was assessed with 11 items
taken from the PANAS scales (Watson et al., 1988), i.e. five Positive Affect
items (strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, and active), and six Negative Affect
items (distressed, upset, irritable, nervous, jittery, and afraid). Altogether,
each ESM form took about three to four minutes to complete. Alpha
coefficients (computed with within-person standardised scores) were 0.83
for the PA sub-scale and 0.87 for the NA sub-scale, allowing aggregation to
compute the average NA and PA scores per individual.

Analytic Strategy
The data in this study consist of 65 individuals who had responded at
28 points in time on several different measures (i.e. a temporal multilevel
structure). Hypotheses involving binary outcomes (e.g. preferred activity,
where 0 = leisure and 1 = work related) were tested by means of logistic

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
118 SNIR AND ZOHAR

regression analysis with repeated measures, using the SAS GENMOD

procedure (SAS Institute, 1997). The procedure uses generalised linear models,
using a logistic version for binary data. Specifically, it employs Generalized
Estimating Equations (GEE) for dealing with correlated data sets arising
from repeated measurements when, except for the correlation among binary
responses, the data can be modeled as a generalised linear model (Liang &
Zeger, 1986).
Hypotheses involving continuous outcome variables (e.g. levels of PA and
NA) were tested with the SAS MIXED procedure, which fits a variety of
mixed linear models to the data (SAS Institute, 1996). One of the essential
features of the mixed linear model is that it recognises that ESM data have
two random components: one due to the sampling of persons, and the other
due to the sampling of repeated measurements within persons (e.g. daily
time-points).

RESULTS
The first step in data analysis included checking the classification of parti-
cipants as workaholics vs. non-workaholics, based on the total number of
working hours in a typical workday. Table 1 presents the outcomes of SAS
GENMOD analyses, which indicate that workaholics, as compared to non-
workaholics, had a greater likelihood of performing work-related activity, being
with people from the work domain (e.g. supervisors, colleagues, subordinates),
and being at a work-related location (e.g. one’s own or customer’s office).
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for study variables. As can be
seen, working hours were strongly correlated with performing work-related
activity (r = .61), thinking about work (r = .64), preferring work activity
(r = .46), being with people from the work domain (r = .50), and being at a
work-related location (r = .56). All the above correlations were significant
beyond p < .01. Working hours were also moderately correlated with aver-
age positive affect (r = .30; p < .05).
Table 3 presents the results of GENMOD analyses that test Hypotheses
1a–b (i.e. the cognitive aspect of workaholism). These results indicate that
workaholics had a greater likelihood than non-workaholics of thinking
about work (H1a), as well as thinking about work during leisure activity (H1b).
Table 3 presents further results of the GENMOD analysis relating to
Hypothesis 2. Workaholics, as compared to non-workaholics, had a greater
likelihood of preferring work over leisure activity, supporting that hypothesis.
Table 4 presents the results of the MIXED analysis that tests Hypotheses
3a–b. The results indicate that positive affect associated with work was
higher than that associated with leisure activity. However, this effect was
stronger among workaholics than non-workaholics (H3b). The shape of that
interaction, which is presented in Figure 1, supports this hypothesis.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 TABLE 1
Psychology.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Workaholism as a Predictor of Daily Activities, Social Interactions, and Whereabouts throughout

a Typical Week: Results of GENMOD Analyses

Analysis of GEE parameter estimates

N Scaled deviance Parameter

Outcome variable (Observations) value/DF (W’lism) Estimate Std Err Z Pr > |Z|

Performing work-related activity 1711 1.3587 No −.4062 .1408 −2.884 .0039

Being with people from the work domain 1707 1.3221 No −.3813 .1684 −2.264 .0236
Being at a work-related location 1708 1.3564 No −.3592 .1389 −2.586 .0097

WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT

Note: N (respondents) = 65; Workaholics serve as a zero reference-point for non-workaholics.

TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations (Computed Across Respondents) of Main Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Total daily working hours 10.30 2.17 1.00

2. Performing work-related activity .43 .14 .61** 1.00
3. Thinking about work .41 .15 .64** .80** 1.00
4. Preferring work-related activity .21 .16 .46** .47** .54** 1.00
5. Being with people from the work domain .38 .16 .50** .73** .63** .24 1.00
6. Being at a work-related location .42 .14 .56** .89** .71** .32* .79** 1.00
7. Average positive affect (PA) 2.42 .55 .30* .38** .33** .34** .31* .28* 1.00
8. Average negative affect (NA) .71 .54 −.02 .10 .19 −.00 .13 .31 −.14 1.00

Note: N (respondents) = 65; Variables 2–6 were computed in a similar manner. For example, variable 2 was computed as the number of observations in which the activity
of the respondent is work related, divided by the number of his/her valid observations.

119
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
 TABLE 3
Psychology.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

120
Workaholism as a Predictor: Results of GENMOD Analyses

Analysis of GEE parameter estimates

SNIR AND ZOHAR

N Scaled deviance Parameter
Outcome variable (Observations) value/DF (W’lism) Estimate Std Err Z Pr > |Z|

Thinking about work 1702 1.3360 No −.5934 .1419 −4.181 .0000

Thinking about work during leisure activity 1702 .3647 No −.8663 .3158 −2.743 .0061
Preferring work-related activity 1689 1.0135 No −.7246 .2079 −3.485 .0005
Performing work activities during leisure activity 1706 .2430 No −.4296 .3944 −1.089 .2760

Note: N (respondents) = 65; workaholics serve as a zero reference-point for non-workaholics.

TABLE 4
Results of MIXED Analyses

Null model LRT Tests of fixed effects

N
Outcome variable (Observations) X2 DF P-value Source NDF DDF F Pr > F

Positive affect 1698 591.412 27 .0000 Type of main activity 1 1431 51.71 .0001
Workaholism 1 62.8 2.16 .1465
Type of main activity 1 1431 4.25 .0393
× Workaholism
Physical discomfort 414 181.326 7 .0000 Workaholism 1 62.1 .03 .8651
Negative affect 412 205.354 7 .0000 Workaholism 1 59.5 .02 .8756

Note: LRT = Likelihood Ratio Test; Type of main activity (0 = leisure, 1 = work); N (respondents) = 65.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 121

FIGURE 1. Interaction between type of main activity and workaholism as

predictors of positive affect.
Note: A diamond indicates non-workaholics; a square indicates workaholics.

Tables 3 and 4 present further results concerning Hypotheses 4 and 5a–b.

These hypotheses derive from the negative, addiction-based view of work-
aholism. Results of the GENMOD analysis in Table 3 indicate no significant
differences between workaholics and non-workaholics with respect to the
likelihood of performing work-related activities during leisure activity (H4).
Results of the MIXED analyses in Table 4 also indicate no significant
differences between workaholics and non-workaholics in the levels of phys-
ical discomfort (H5a) or negative affect (H5b) during the weekend. This
suggests no withdrawal symptoms indicative of addiction (note that the two
latter hypotheses were only tested with sampled time-points over the week-
end in which the reported activity was leisure-related). Thus, the negative/
addictive workaholism hypotheses have not been supported in this sample.

DISCUSSION
The present study is based on the premise that an operational definition of
workaholism renders this construct open to empirical investigation, disen-
gaging it from preconceived positive or negative connotations. Thus, once
the criterion of discretionary investment of considerable time at work has been
met, it is possible to study positive and negative correlates of workaholism
whose frequency and intensity become open for empirical investigation.
The results of this study indicate that spending significantly more discretion-
ary time at work differentiated between workaholics and non-workaholics

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
122 SNIR AND ZOHAR

in terms of the likelihood of performing work-related activity, being with

people from the work domain, and being at a work-related location over the
course of a typical week. Workaholics also exhibited a greater likelihood of
thinking about work, as well as thinking about work during leisure activity.
Furthermore, the workaholics in our sample had a greater likelihood of
preferring work over leisure activity and experienced more positive affect
during work than during leisure activity in comparison to non-workaholics.
These data are in line with the dynamic interactionist perspective (Ickes
et al., 1997), whereby people choose to enter and participate in those situa-
tions that fit them the most. This agrees also with research indicating that
positive feelings are stronger during self-chosen than externally imposed
situations (Emmons & Diener, 1986a). Two additional findings of the present
study are helpful in clarifying this aspect. First, workaholics assessed their
progress in work-related activities more positively than did non-workaholics.
Secondly, workaholics attributed more importance to work-related activities
than to leisure activities, whereas the reverse was true for non-workaholics.
Using the experience sampling method, Alliger and Williams (1993) found
that perceived goal progress predicts positive affect and task enjoyment,
which is consistent with self-regulation processes outlined in Carver and
Scheier’s (1990) control theory. Emmons and Diener (1986b) also found
that individuals feel greater positive affect if they are achieving important
goals, all of which explains the internal structure in our data.
By contrast, the hypotheses predicated on the negative/addictive view of
workaholism were not supported. Although such a lack of support might
have resulted from our sample, it agrees with Snir’s (1998) data indicating
no relationship between total daily work hours and scores on the addiction
scale constructed by Gossop and Eysenck (1980). One might also claim that
experiencing withdrawal symptoms is more probably due to substance-
dependence than work addiction. However, Fassel (1990) suggested that
working long hours elevates the level of adrenalin, which might be addictive
and perpetuate a cycle of work addiction. Furthermore, Rosenthal and
Lesieur (1992) studied withdrawal symptoms associated with pathological
gambling, which is a purely behavioral addiction, and reported a relationship
with a range of bodily symptoms (e.g. insomnia, headaches, upset stomach,
heart palpitations). Such symptoms were observed in 25 per cent to 50 per
cent of the participants, suggesting that addiction might be behavior, rather
than substance, based. Thus, the use of withdrawal symptoms to assess work
addiction is based on sound logic, requiring further investigation.
The positive correlates of workaholism such as the ones investigated in
this study can be explained in terms of the dynamic interactionist perspective
(Ickes et al., 1997), and the attraction, selection, and attrition of employees
by organisations (Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al., 1995). That is, work-
aholics are more likely to be attracted to demanding jobs and to be selected

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 123
by organisations for such jobs. They are also more likely, as compared to
non-workaholics, to keep these jobs. Workaholics who develop personal,
familial, or health problems due to their work investment are more likely to quit
their jobs or to be dismissed. Over time, therefore, the positively oriented
workaholics might occupy the most demanding jobs. Thus, in order to
examine the negative/addictive view of workaholism, there is a need for
longitudinal studies, which include workaholics who had to give up their
former demanding jobs. The accumulating body of research on the negative
effects of long work hours (e.g. Dembe, Erickson, Delbos, & Banks, 2005;
Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shriom, 1997; van der Hulst, 2003) and overtime
work (Liu & Tanaka, 2002) on health and health-related behavior also calls
for such studies.
Methodologically, the present study enjoys the benefits of using a relatively
unbiased, though not fully randomised sample of full-time workers by con-
trast to previous research whose samples included students, members of
Workaholics Anonymous, or patients seeking therapy (e.g. Flowers &
Robinson, 2002; Robinson, 1996, 1999). Furthermore, comparing work-
aholics to non-workaholic full-time employees, rather than to part-time or
unemployed individuals, enabled a stricter hypothesis testing. Our study
also addresses the impact of workaholism on leisure activity, tracking the
effect of workaholism beyond the boundaries of work (e.g. thinking about
work during leisure activity). In this respect, it answers previous criticisms
of workaholism research (McMillan, O’Driscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001).
Finally, this study offers high ecological validity, which is attributed to the
experience sampling methodology.
The present study also has some limitations. Its data are based on self-
reports collected through convenience sampling. Thus, there is a need to
complement our study with reports from family, friends, and co-workers
(Porter, 1996), as well as objective records of work hours. A recent study,
carried out by Aziz and Zickar (2006), has adopted this approach. More-
over, it should not be overlooked that ESM involves intensive study of
relatively small samples, suggesting that such studies must be complemented
by studies using larger samples and corresponding methodologies. The
limited size and construction of the present sample have suited the purpose
of testing the utility of an operational framework for studying workaholism,
while precluding any epidemiological relevance. That is, although it is
clear that workaholism has positive and negative correlates, the relevant
distributions and contingencies require larger randomised samples that use
the operational framework for investigating this phenomenon without the
constraints of predefined measures. Such studies should examine a wider
range of correlates, including work–family issues that were not included
in the present study. We hope this study will stimulate further work along
these lines.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
124 SNIR AND ZOHAR

REFERENCES
Alesina, A., Glaeser, E., & Sacerdote, B. (2005). Work and leisure in the US and Europe:
Why so different? (NBER Working Paper No. 11278). Cambridge, MA: The
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Alliger, G.M., & Williams, K.J. (1993). Using signal-contingent experience sampling
methodology to study work in the field: A discussion and illustration examining
task perceptions and mood. Personnel Psychology, 46, 525–549.
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M.J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as
a syndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 52–62.
Babbar, S., & Aspelin, D.J. (1998). The overtime rebellion: Symptom of a bigger
problem? Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 68–76.
Blair-Loy, M., & Jacobs, J.A. (2003). Globalization, work hours, and the care deficit
among stockbrokers. Gender and Society, 17, 230–249.
Brett, J.M., & Stroh, L.K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers
do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78.
Burke, R.J. (1999). Workaholism in organizations: Measurement validation and
replication. International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 45–55.
Burke, R.J. (2001). Spence and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components:
Test-retest stability. Psychological Reports, 88, 882–888.
Burke, R.J., Richardsen, A.M., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among
Norwegian managers: Work and well-being outcomes. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 17, 459 – 470.
Cantarow, E. (1979). Women workaholics. Mother Jones, 6, 56.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative
affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.
Cherrington, D.J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American Management
Association.
Clark, L.A., McEwen, J.L., Collard, L.M., & Hickok, L.G. (1993). Symptoms and traits
of personality disorder: Two new methods for their assessment. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 81–91.
Clarkberg, M., & Moen, P. (2001). Understanding the time-squeeze. Married couples’
preferred and actual work-hour strategies. American Behavioral Scientist, 44,
1115 –1136.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-
sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536.
Dembe, A.E., Erickson, J.B., Delbos, R.G., & Banks, S.M. (2005). The impact of
overtime and long work hours on occupational injuries and illnesses: New
evidence from the United States. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62,
588 –597.
Emmons, R.A., & Diener, E. (1986a). Situation selection as a moderator of response
consistency and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1013–
1019.
Emmons, R.A., & Diener, E. (1986b). A goal-affect analysis of everyday situational
choices. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 309–326.
Engstrom, T.W., & Juroe, D.J. (1979). The work trap. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H.
Revell Co.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 125
Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high costs of workaholism, the
rewards of recovery. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.
Flowers, C.P., & Robinson, B. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of
the Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62,
517–526.
Garfield, C.A. (1987). Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New
York: William Morrow.
George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1990). The economic instrumentality of work: An
examination of the moderating effects of financial requirements and sex on the
pay–life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 357–368.
Gossop, M.R., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1980). A further investigation into the personality
of drug addicts in treatment. British Journal of Addiction, 75, 305–311.
Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations,
56, 291–320.
Hektner, J.M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002).The experience sampling method:
Measuring the context and content of lives. In R.B. Bechtel & A. Churchman
( Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology ( pp. 233–243). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Ickes, W., Snyder, M., & Garcia, S. (1997). Personality influences on the choice of
situations. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality
psychology (pp. 165–195). New York: Academic Press.
Jacobs, J.A., & Gerson, K. (1997). The endless day or the flexible office: Working
hours, work–family conflict, and gender equality in the modern workplace. A report
to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2004). Effects of economic environmental changes
on job demands and workaholism in Japan. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 17, 537–548.
Kiechel, W. (1989a). The workaholic generation. Fortune, 10 April, 50–62.
Kiechel, W. (1989b). Workaholics anonymous. Fortune, 14 August, 117–118.
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Killingsworth, M.R. (1993). Labor supply. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klaft, R.P., & Kleiner, B.H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 33, 37–
40.
Liang, K.Y., & Zeger, S.L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized
linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13 –22.
Liu, Y., & Tanaka, H. (2002). Overtime work, insufficient sleep, and risk on non-
fatal acute myocardial infarction in Japanese men. Occupational and Environmen-
tal Medicine, 59, 447– 451.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics. Living with them, working with them. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
McMillan, L.H.W., Brady, E.C., O’Driscoll, M.P., & Marsh, N.V. (2002). A multi-
faceted validation study of Spence and Robbins’ (1992) Workaholism Battery.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 357–368.
McMillan, L.H.W., O’Driscoll, M.P., Marsh, N.V., & Brady, E.C. (2001). Under-
standing workaholism: Data synthesis, theoretical critique, and future design
strategies. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 69–91.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
126 SNIR AND ZOHAR

Maume, D.J. Jr., & Bellas, M.L. (2001). The overworked American or the time
bind? Assessing competing explanations for time spent in paid labor. American
Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1137–1156.
Morris, S., & Charney, N. (1983). Workaholism: Thank God it’s Monday. Psychology
Today, 17 June, 88.
Naughton, T.J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for
career counseling and research. Career Development Quarterly, 6, 180–187.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New
York: World Publishing.
Pervin, L.A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of controversy and
a discussion of theoretical models. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 350–
360.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for research-
ing the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 1, 70 – 84.
Robinson, B.E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
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. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative
measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199–210.
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 Addiction 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.
Rohrlich, J.B. (1980). Work and love: The crucial balance. New York: Summit
Books.
Rosenthal, R.J., & Lesieur, H.R. (1992). Self-reported withdrawal symptoms and
pathological gambling. The American Journal on Addictions, 1, 150–154.
SAS Institute Inc. (1996). SAS/STAT(R) software: Changes and enhancements
through Release 6.11. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
SAS Institute Inc. (1997). SAS/STAT(R) software: Changes and enhancements through
Release 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Schaef, A.W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The addictive organization. San Francisco, CA:
Harper Row.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, D.B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.
Scott, K.S., Moore, K.S., & Miceli, M.P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and
consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
Seybold, K.C., & Salomone, P.R (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of
causes and counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 4–
10.
Snir, R. (1998). Workaholism: Description, definition, measurement, and validation.
Ph.D. Dissertation, The Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
(in Hebrew).

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 WORKAHOLISM AND TIME INVESTMENT 127
Snir, R, & Zohar, D. (2000). Workaholism: Work-addiction or workphilia? Paper
presented at the International Conference on Psychology, Psychology after the
year 2000, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work
on health: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 70, 391– 408.
Spence, J.T., & Robbins, A.S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and
preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
Sprankle, J.K., & Ebel, H. (1987). The workaholic syndrome. New York: Walker.
van der Hulst, M. (2003). Long workhours and health. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment, and Health, 29, 171–188.
Waddell, J.R. (1993). The grindstone. Supervision, 26, 11–13.
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.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.