1. No category

This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen]
On: 19 January 2013, At: 11:06
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20
Workaholism and work–family spillover in a crossoccupational sample
Cecilie Schou Andreassen
a
a b
a
, Jørn Hetland & Ståle Pallesen
a
Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
b
The Bergen Clinics Foundation, Bergen, Norway
Version of record first published: 03 Jan 2012.
To cite this article: Cecilie Schou Andreassen , Jørn Hetland & Ståle Pallesen (2013): Workaholism and work–family spillover
in a cross-occupational sample, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22:1, 78-87
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626201
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2013
Vol. 22, No. 1, 78–87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626201
Workaholism and work–family spillover in a cross-occupational sample
Cecilie Schou Andreassen1,2, Jørn Hetland1, and Sta˚le Pallesen1
1
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
2
Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
The Bergen Clinics Foundation, Bergen, Norway
This study examined the relationship between three components of workaholism (work involvement, drive, enjoyment
of work) and work–family spillover. A cross-occupational sample consisting of 661 Norwegian employees from six
different organizations responded to a Web-based questionnaire measuring workaholism and work–family spillover. A
short and revised version of the WorkBAT showed that work involvement was positively related to both positive
family-to-work spillover and to negative work-to-family spillover. Drive was positively related to both negative workto-family and negative family-to-work spillover, and negatively related to positive work-to-family spillover. Enjoyment
of work was positively associated with positive work-to-family and positive family-to-work spillover. Workaholism is
clearly related to spillover. The findings imply that interventions for workers scoring high on work involvement and
drive should be emphasized as these dimensions were associated with negative spillover. More research on this area is
warranted.
Keywords: Workaholism; WorkBAT; Work–family interface.
In the wake of globalization, new technology, and
blurred boundaries between work and other life
domains, some authors have suggested that we are
witnessing an increase in workaholism (Fassel, 1990;
Machlowitz, 1980; Schor, 1991). Consequently, concerns have been raised about the impact of working
long hours and excessive work. In line with these
concerns, previous studies have linked workaholism
to life satisfaction (Bonebright, Clay, & Ankenmann,
2000; McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002;
Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008), perceived
health (Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009), subjective health
complaints (Andreassen, Hetland, Molde, & Pallesen,
2011), burnout (Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007),
and sleep (Kubota et al., 2010). Although some
studies have investigated the relationship between
workaholism and work–family conflicts, none of
these has systematically investigated the relationship
between different features of workaholism and
different dimensions of work–family spillover (Aziz,
Adkins, Walker, & Wuensch, 2010; Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, 2009; Bonebright et al., 2000; Robinson, Flowers, & Carroll, 2001; Taris, Schaufeli, &
Verhoeven, 2005). With the present study, we aim to
be the first to report systematically on the multidimensional relationships between workaholism and
work–family spillover.
In terms of definitions and operationalizations,
Spence and Robbins (1992) define workaholism by
identifying three independent dimensions or components: work involvement (reflecting much time spent
on work and blurred boundaries between work and
private life), drive (an obsessive compulsion to work)
and enjoyment of work (reporting negative and/or
positive feelings about work). Based on these dimensions, Spence and Robbins categorized two types of
workaholics: ‘‘enthusiastic’’, who are characterized
by high levels of work involvement, driven by an internal pressure to work, and who find great fulfilment
and pleasure in work; and ‘‘nonenthusiastic’’, who
Correspondence should be addressed to Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, N-5015
Bergen, Norway. E-mail: cecilie.andreassen@psych.uib.no
The authors would like to thank the employees and management of the organizations for their collaboration. We would also like to thank
Trude Remme and Arne Magnus Morken for their technical assistance.
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER
are also highly involved in work-related activities and
are driven to work, but who don’t seem to derive
enjoyment from doing so. Lately, some authors argue
that positive workaholism has strong parallels to
work engagement (Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris,
2009). However, this view might be somewhat
misleading as highly work-engaged employees lack
the typical compulsive drive that is characteristic of
any addiction, including an addiction to work (Taris,
Schaufeli, & Shimazu, 2010). Workaholics seem to
experience a compulsive drive, regardless of whether
they like or dislike working. Hence, this characteristic
seems to separate workaholism from other related
constructs, such as work engagement (Shimazu &
Schaufeli, 2009), passion towards work (Vallerand,
Paquet, Philippe, & Charest, 2010), organizational
commitment (Angle & Perry, 1981), and the like.
Both previous (Bonebright et al., 2000; Burke,
2000; McMillan et al., 2002) and recent (Andreassen,
Hetland, & Pallesen, 2010; Andreassen et al., 2007;
Snir & Zohar, 2008) research suggests that enjoyment
of work is typically linked to career satisfaction, work
engagement, experience of purpose in life, positive
affect, as well as emotional and physical well-being.
Drive, on the other hand, has in previous research
been linked with negative affects and with poor health
(Andreassen et al., 2011; McMillan & O’Driscoll,
2004). Work involvement has also been linked with
adverse outcomes, although to a less consistent
degree than drive (Andreassen et al., 2011; McMillan
& O’Driscoll, 2004).
Hence, workaholism can entail both benefits and
disadvantages (Andreassen et al., 2007; Ng, Sorensen,
& Feldman, 2007). Workaholism is related to high
productivity, but may, on the other side of the coin, be
destructive for the family (Bonebright et al., 2000;
Robinson, 1998; Taris et al., 2005). Extensive involvement in work, chronic stress, and time pressure have
been highlighted as factors that may be relevant
predictors of work–family spillover (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985; Robinson, 1998). ‘‘Work–family conflicts’’ are regarded as interrole conflicts in which the
role pressures from the work and family spheres are
perceived as incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985, p. 77), and are linked to a range of negative
physiological, behavioural, and psychological outcomes (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kinnunen, Feldt,
Geurts, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Robinson, 1998). Recently, Russo and Waters (2006) suggested that ‘‘one
potential antecedent of work–family conflict may be
workaholism’’ (p. 421). This suggestion is in line with
previous studies showing a positive correlation
between time spent at work and work–family conflict.
It has further been suggested that work–family
conflict may also be related to dispositional (e.g.,
Type A) and environmental antecedents (e.g., organizational policies incompatible with work–life
79
balance) (Fu & Shaffer, 2001). So far, very few studies
have been conducted that examine the relationship
between workaholism and work–family conflict. All
of these conclude that workaholics report a higher
degree of work–family conflict than nonworkaholics
(Bonebright et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2001; Russo
& Waters, 2006; Taris et al., 2005). Work–family
conflict can be regarded as a negative aspect of what is
known as ‘‘spillover’’. In contemporary literature,
spillover is defined as the transfer of mood, energy and
skills from one sphere to another (Grosswald, 2003).
It is assumed that spillover can be positive as well as
negative (e.g., work–family facilitation and work–
family conflict) (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and that
spillover can operate in both directions (e.g., work-tofamily and family-to-work) (Grzywacz & Marks,
2000; Kinnunen et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2008;
Zedeck, 1992). It is presumed, however, that the work
domain has more of an influence on family life than
family life has on work (Burke & Greenglass, 1987;
Leiter & Durup, 1996); as a result, several studies on
the topic of spillover have focused on work–family
conflict (see Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Voydanoff, 1988). Spillover may
be particularly relevant in developed countries, as
these seem to have high proportions of dual-earner
couples (Melinda & Jacobs, 2008). Authors have also
pointed to emerging working life trends such as new
online technology, new and more absorbing/stimulating knowledge work, as well as downsizing and
reorganization as factors which may blur the boundaries between family and work (Humbert & Lewis,
2008), making the topic of workaholism and spillover
urgently relevant.
Although different potential work–family spillover
correlates of workaholism have been suggested,
empirical support for the majority of these notions
is sparse. Very few empirical studies have investigated
the associations between workaholism and different
work–family spillover effects. So far, no study has
investigated the relationship between different workaholism dimensions and all aspects of work–family
spillover (positive and negative spillover from workto-family and from family-to-work, respectively). In
one study, it was found that job demands were
positively related to work–family conflict (Shimazu,
Bakker, & Demerouti, 2009). In line with this finding,
Bakker et al. (2009) reported a positive association
between scores on the Work Compulsion subscale of
the Work Addiction Risk Test (Robinson, 1999) and
a measure of work–family conflict. Russo and Waters
(2006) found that the WorkBAT Drive subscale of
the Workaholism Battery (Spence & Robbins, 1992)
was significantly related to work–family conflict
(r ¼ .46), whereas WorkBAT Enjoyment of Work
was unrelated to work–family conflict. These authors
also suggested significant relations between worker
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
80
ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN
type and work–family conflict (Russo & Waters,
2006). Still, very few empirical studies have investigated the associations between the different ‘‘workaholism’’ features and different spillover parameters.
There are, to date, not enough data to create
normative standards for WorkBAT scores. Against
this background, in the present article we will
emphasize the different ‘‘workaholic’’ features (reflected by continuous scores) rather than ‘‘workaholic
types’’ (categories). Furthermore, the use of continuous scores rather than the use of categories takes
advantage of the whole range of variance of the
variables in questions.
The present study aims to extend our understanding of potential spillover effects and relations to
‘‘workaholism’’ by examining how its different
dimensions are related to all four aspects of the
work–family spillover.
Although not in line with all the specific findings
referred to earlier, previous findings have generally
indicated that enjoyment of work is linked with
positive outcomes and drive is linked with negative
outcomes, whereas work involvement is related to
adverse outcomes; however, these relations are often
small and unreliable (Andreassen et al., 2011).
Against this background, our hypotheses are as
follows: 1(a) Work involvement will be positively
related to negative spillover and (b) negatively related
to positive spillover. 2(a) Drive will be positively
related to negative spillover and (b) negatively related
to positive spillover. 3(a) Enjoyment of work will be
negatively related to negative spillover and (b)
positively related to positive spillover,
METHOD
Sample
Internet-based questionnaires were administered to
1300 Norwegian cross-occupational employees. A
total of 661 respondents answered, yielding a
response rate of 51%. The sample was comprised of
managers of a major national pharmaceutical company (n ¼ 127), employees of a regional healthcare
sector company (n ¼ 96), a national television (TV)
station (n ¼ 172), two different human resource (HR)
consultancy companies (n ¼ 80), and employees from
two university faculties (n ¼ 186). The response rate
per company ranged from 39% (university) to 68%
(TV). The sample consisted of 360 (54%) females and
301 (46%) males, whose ages ranged from 16 to 72
years (M ¼ 42.6, SD ¼ 10.5). The majority of the
respondents were married or living with a partner
(67%), were living with children (53%), and were
educated at the university level (87%). The period of
service in the companies ranged from new employees
to employees who had tenure longer than 20 years.
Most of the employees worked full time (88%) and
had worked in the organizations for between 0 and 10
years (86%); 35% worked less than 40 hours per
week (37.5 hours per week is the national average for
hours worked in typical Norwegian working samples
having full-time positions), 28% between 41 and 45
hours, 19% between 46 and 50 hours, and 18%
worked more than 51 hours per week; 351 employees
(53%) were managers or had management
responsibilities.
Instruments
Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT). By conducting
explorative structural equation modelling (SEM), we
previously (Andreassen et al., 2010) found support
for a revised and shorter 14-item Norwegian version
of WorkBAT (Spence & Robbins, 1992), which we
used to measure ‘‘workaholism’’. The SEM results
came from the same dataset as used here. The
Norwegian version was based on a standardized
translation-back-translation procedure. All items
were answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(‘‘strongly agree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly disagree’’). The
questionnaire measures three dimensions of
‘‘workaholism’’: (1) ‘‘Work involvement’’ (e.g., ‘‘I
spend my free time on projects and other activities’’)
(three items), reflecting the need to spend time
efficiently both at work and when off work, blurred
boundaries between work and private life, as well as
the inability to relax. The corrected item-total
correlations for this subscale ranged from .36 to .40.
(2) ‘‘Drive’’ (e.g., ‘‘I seem to have an inner compulsion
to work hard’’) (four items) reflects internal pressure/
motivation for work and the frequency of thinking
about work. The corrected item-total correlations for
this subscale ranged from .57 to .73. (3) ‘‘Enjoyment
of work’’ (e.g., ‘‘Sometimes I enjoy my work so much
I have a hard time stopping’’) (seven items) assesses
satisfaction from work. The corrected item-total
correlations for this subscale ranged from .51 to .69.
Work–Family Interface Scale (WFIS). Spillover
between work and family life was measured by the
WFIS (Kinnunen et al., 2006). The Norwegian
adaptation was based on a standardized translationback-translation procedure. The scale consists of 14
items which cover different aspects of the interaction
between work and family. All items are answered on
a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘‘never’’) to 5 (‘‘very
often’’). The scale measures four potential spillover
effects: ‘‘negative spillover from family to work’’ (e.g.,
‘‘your home life interferes with your responsibilities
at work, such as getting to work on time,
accomplishing daily tasks or working overtime’’)
(four items), ‘‘negative spillover from work to
family’’ (e.g., ‘‘your job produces strain that makes
WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER
it difficult to fulfil your family duties’’) (four items),
‘‘positive spillover from family to work’’ (e.g., ‘‘after
spending time with your spouse/family, you go to
work in a good mood, positively affecting the
atmosphere at work’’) (three items), and finally,
‘‘positive spillover from work to family’’ (e.g., ‘‘You
manage your time at home more efficiently as a result
of the way you do your job’’) (three items). Overall,
the negative spillover items are either time or strain
based, whereas the positive spillover items reflect
positive mood, skills, or behaviour.
components in the regression analyses. Since spending
excessive time on work at the expense of other
activities is included in most definitions of workaholism (Ng et al., 2007), work hours were not included in
the regressions, since it may be viewed as an
alternative measure rather than a correlate of
workaholism. The three workaholism components
were all entered at Step 3. Finally, prior to conducting
the regression analyses, checks for normality, multicollinearity, linearity, and homoscedasticity were
conducted. No violations of assumptions were found.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
Procedure
Data were collected in a Web-based survey that was
carried out during autumn 2007/spring 2008. Before
initiating the study, meetings were arranged at which
the leaders of invited organizations were informed
about the investigation. Information was given in
advance to all potential respondents about the aims
and objectives of the study (by the CEOs of the
organizations by electronic mail). A total of 1300
invitations were sent, containing information about the
survey and informed consent. The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Health
Region West, Norway, approved the study protocol.
Statistics
Data analyses were conducted using the SPSS 16.0
statistical package for Windows. Descriptive statistics
(internal consistencies, means, standard deviations,
percentage frequencies, and intercorrelations) for
each subscale of interest were calculated. Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated in order to investigate the relationships between
relevant subscales in the present study. Finally, in
order to assess in more detail the relationships
between the three workaholism components and the
four work–family spillover effects, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed.
Relevant background variables were entered in the
first two steps of all regressions in order to control for
possible confounding relationships. Independent variables were entered into the equation in three steps.
Individual demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, living with children) were entered at Step 1.
These variables were included as previous studies have
shown spillover to be related to age (Lundberg,
Mardberg, & Frankenhaeuser, 1994), gender (Wharton & Blair-Loy, 2006), marital status (Delgado &
Canabal, 2006), as well as to the presence of children
in the household (Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald,
2002). In order to prevent inflated relationships
between workaholism and spillover, we entered the
work-related variables (professional position, employee sector) at Step 2, before the workaholism
81
RESULTS
Internal consistency and reliability
Cronbach’s alpha values for all scales are presented in
Table 1. The work involvement subscale (a ¼ .57),
and the two subscales measuring positive spillover
(as ¼ .68 and .72) had rather low alphas. It should be
noted that the work involvement subscale in its
original form has also proven to have low reliability
across studies, and therefore should be used with
caution.
Correlations
There were significant correlations between the
workaholism components and the scales measuring
work–family spillover (see Table 1). Work involvement correlated positively with negative work-tofamily spillover, and with both negative and positive
family-to-work spillover. Drive correlated positively
with negative work-to-family and negative family-towork spillover, and showed an inverse relationship with
positive work-to-family spillover. Enjoyment of work
correlated positively with both positive and negative
work-to-family spillover, and positively with positive
spillover from family to work.
Regression analyses
Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical multiple
regression analyses examining the relationships between the three workaholism components and the
four spillover effects.
Family-to-work
spillover
and
demographic
variables. Females reported less negative family-towork spillover and more positive family-to-work
spillover than males. Respondents living with
children reported more negative family-to-work
spillover than respondents living without children at
home. However, respondents living with children also
reported higher positive family-to-work spillover
than respondents living without children at home.
When it comes to the work sector, the overall findings
82
ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN
TABLE 1
Significant correlations and descriptive statistics (N ¼ 661)
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.24**
.08*
.23**
.03
.11**
.10*
.05
.05
.05
.06
.07
10.73
2.41
3–15
.57
3
.05
.32**
7.10**
.12**
.03
7.20**
7.02
.07
7.04
.08*
12.32
3.82
4–20
.83
4
.09*
.35**
.00
.20**
.08*
7.15**
7.10*
.00
.03
22.46
5.03
7–35
.85
7
7.11**
.45**
.09*
7.09*
7.05
7.10*
.20**
.14**
9.82
3.25
4–20
.93
4
7.08
.53**
.10**
.05
7.15**
.05
.09*
7.34
2.74
3–15
.68
3
.14**
.01
7.15**
7.12**
.40**
.08
10.96
2.26
4–20
.87
4
—
.05
.07
7.17**
.16**
.12**
9.29
2.06
3–15
.72
3
7.11**
7.18**
.02
.19**
42.59
10.50
16–72
9
10
11
.12**
7.07
7.08*
7.30**
7.20**
.14**
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
a
1.
Work involvement
2.
Drivea
3.
Enjoyment of worka
4.
Negative W-F spillover
5.
Positive W-F spillover
6.
Negative F-W spillover
7.
Positive F-W spillover
8.
Age
9.
Genderb
10. Marital statusc
11. Childrend
12. Positione
M
SD
Range
a
Items
1
a
Shortened WorkBAT subscale; bGender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female); cMarital status (1 ¼ partner, 2 ¼ no partner); dLiving with children
(1 ¼ no, 2 ¼ yes); ePosition (1 ¼ follower, 2 ¼ leader/leadership responsibility). *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.
suggest a higher level of both negative and positive
spillover in the TV sector (which comprised the
reference group) compared to many of the other
sectors. However, respondents from the university
sector reported more negative family-to-work
spillover than respondents from the TV sector.
explained a total of 14% of the variance. Drive
(negatively) and enjoyment of work (positively) were
significantly related to positive work-to-family
spillover. Enjoyment of work made the strongest
contribution to the variance.
Family-to-work spillover and workaholism. For
negative family-to-work spillover, the workaholism
components explained about 2% of the variance.
Drive was the only component that was significantly
and positively related to negative family-to-work
spillover. For positive family-to-work spillover, the
workaholism components explained a total of 5% of
the variance. Work involvement and enjoyment of
work were significantly and positively related to
positive family-to-work spillover. Enjoyment of work
was the strongest contributory variable.
DISCUSSION
Work-to-family
spillover
and
demographic
variables. Respondents
living
with
children
reported more negative work-to-family spillover
than respondents living without children at home.
When it comes to the work sector, the respondents
from the HR sector reported more positive work-tofamily spillover than respondents from the TV sector.
Work-to-family spillover and workaholism. For
negative work-to-family spillover, the workaholism
components explained 10% of the variance. Both
work involvement and drive were significantly and
positively related to negative work-to-family
spillover. Drive was the strongest contributory
variable in the model. Finally, for positive work-tofamily spillover, the workaholism components
Summation of the main findings
The present study is the first that investigates the
relationship between workaholism and all aspects of
work–family spillover. Work involvement was positively related to both positive family-to-work spillover and to negative work-to-family spillover.
Enjoyment of work was positively related to both
positive family-to-work-spillover and to positive
work-to family spillover. Drive was positively related
to negative family-to-work spillover and to negative
work-to-family spillover, and showed an inverse
relationship with positive work-to-family spillover.
Our findings are basically in line with previous
findings showing that enjoyment of work is linked
with positive outcomes and drive is linked with
negative outcomes, whereas work involvement shows
inconsistent/weak relationships with different outcomes (Andreassen et al., 2011).
Spillover and demographic variables
Before we discuss the findings concerning the specific
hypotheses, some comments regarding other variables which were significantly related to spillover are
warranted. In the final step of the regression analysis,
females reported less negative family-to-work
70.01
70.13***
0.01
0.39***
70.01
70.09*
70.02
0.39***
0.03
70.03
70.07
70.10*
0.12**
0.01
70.09*
70.03
0.39***
0.01
70.02
70.07
70.09*
0.11*
.05
.11**
7.03
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
70.00
70.14
70.04
0.63
0.06
70.07
70.18
70.22
0.21
0.00
70.15
70.05
0.63
0.02
70.04
70.18
70.20
0.21
0.02
0.02
70.01
b
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.06
SE B
70.00
70.21
70.16
0.63
B
.23/.02**
.21/.04***
.17***
R/DR
70.01
0.04
70.01
70.26
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.16
70.13
0.17
0.08
70.08
0.04
70.10
70.28
0.00
0.14
70.14
0.17
0.10
0.00
0.14
70.21
0.18
B
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.01
0.08
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.06
SE B
70.01
0.02
70.01
70.16***
.08*
.01
.19***
0.03
0.11**
70.08*
0.12**
0.06
70.04
0.02
70.05
70.18***
0.04
0.10*
70.09*
0.12**
0.07
0.03
0.10*
70.14***
0.12**
b
.05***
R/DR
.13/.05***
.
.08/.03***
Positive F-W spillover
70.03
70.30
70.91
70.37
0.08
0.07
0.01
70.00
0.04
70.05
0.39
0.06
70.17
70.29
71.04
70.36
70.01
0.06
70.01
0.40
0.19
70.01
70.10
70.12
0.41
B
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.00
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.09
0.04
SE B
70.01
70.09*
70.30***
70.15**
0.17***
0.24***
0.03
70.03
0.02
70.02
0.18***
0.03
70.06
70.09*
70.34***
70.15**
70.08*
0.03
70.00
0.18***
0.09*
70.11**
70.05
70.05
0.19***
b
.06***
R/DR
.26/.10***
.15/.10***
Negative W-F spillover
0.18
0.22
0.27
70.17
0.01
70.02
0.05
0.00
0.10
70.09
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.23
0.14
70.22
0.01
0.06
70.14s
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.11
70.21
0.02
B
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.27
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.06
SE B
0.10*
0.10*
0.13**
70.11**
0.04
70.10**
0.37***
0.03
0.07
70.06
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.10*
0.07
70.14**
0.08*
0.04
70.09*
0.00
0.02
0.09*
0.08*
70.14***
0.01
b
Positive W-F spillover
.22/.14***
.08/.05***
.03***
R/DR
a
Gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female); bMarital status (1 ¼ partner, 2 ¼ no partner); cLiving with children (1 ¼ no, 2 ¼ yes); dPosition (1 ¼ follower, 2 ¼ leader/leadership responsibility); eThe TV sector
represents the reference group; fShortened WorkBAT subscale. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.
Step 1
Age
Gendera
Maritalb
Childrenc
Step 2
Age
Gender
Marital
Children
Positiond
Sectore
Pharmacy
HR
Healthcare
University
Step 3
Age
Gender
Marital
Children
Position
Sector
Pharmacy
HR
Healthcare
University
Work involvementf
Drivef
Enjoymentf
Variable
Negative F-W spillover
TABLE 2
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses examining effects of ‘‘workaholism’’ components on work-to-family and family-to-work spillover (N ¼ 661)
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER
83
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
84
ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN
spillover than males. This finding runs counter to a
previous study reporting a higher level of negative
family-to-work spillover in females than males,
reflecting that women more than men made adjustments to their work for the sake of family (Keene &
Reynolds, 2005). We cannot provide any definite
explanation for our contradictory finding, but it
might reflect rather recently occurring changes in the
male sex-role, implying increased expectations concerning domestic contributions (Berridge, Penn, &
Ganjali, 2009).
Females reported more positive family-to-work
spillover than males, probably because females are
more involved in parenting and housework, hence
raising the possibility for positive spillover from the
family to the work domain (Perrone, Wright, &
Jackson, 2009).
Respondents living with children reported more
negative spillover (both work-to-family and familyto-work) than respondents living without children at
home. This may imply that having children may
interfere with responsibilities at work and vice versa
(Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Kelly & Voydanoff,
1985). However, respondents living with children
reported higher positive family-to-work spillover
than respondents living without children at home.
This is in line with the notion that children may leave
space for experiencing positive spillover effects, as
suggested by other studies (Frone, Russel, & Cooper,
1992; Fujimoto, Kotani, & Suzuki, 2008). These
seemingly contradictory findings suggest that children
intensify the spillover effects, both positive and
negative, between work and family. When it comes
to the work sector, the overall findings suggest a
higher level of both negative and positive spillover in
the TV sector (which comprised the reference group)
compared to many of the other sectors. However,
respondents from the university sector reported more
negative family-to-work spillover, and respondents
from the HR sector reported more positive work-tofamily spillover, than respondents from the TV sector.
Spillover and workaholism
When it comes to the relationship between workaholism and spillover, we hypothesized that work
involvement would be positively related to negative
spillover and negatively related to positive spillover.
The regression analyses showed that work involvement was positively associated with positive spillover
effects from family to work and positively related to
negative work-to-family spillover. Work involvement
was unrelated to both negative spillover from family
to work and to positive spillover from work to
family.
The finding that work involvement was positively
related to negative work-to-family spillover was in
line with Hypothesis 1a and is also consistent with
previous studies, where involvement in work was
found to be related to work-life conflict (Bonebright
et al., 2000; Rain, Lane, & Steiner, 1991). However,
the finding that work involvement was positively
related to positive family-to-work spillover was
contrary to Hypothesis 1b. We have no clear
explanation for this finding. Overall, Hypothesis 1a
was partly confirmed, but 1b was, by and large, not
confirmed. The results are, to some extent, in line
with studies finding primarily weak relationships
between work involvement and other constructs
(Andreassen et al., 2011). The findings concerning
work involvement should be interpreted with caution
due to the rather poor psychometric properties of the
subscale measuring this dimension. This may also
explain the weak/inconsistent findings.
Second, we assumed that drive would be negatively related to positive spillover and positively
related to negative spillover. Hypothesis 2a was
confirmed, whereas Hypothesis 2b was only partly
confirmed as drive was negatively associated with
positive work-to-family spillover but unrelated to
positive family-to-work spillover. Overall, the results
suggest that drive is particularly negative for the
work-to-family interface, which is understandable as
drive reflects an obsessive attitude and behaviour
towards work (Andreassen et al., 2010) and is parallel
to previous studies (Kanai, Wakabayashi, & Fling,
1996; McMillan & O’Driscoll, 2004).
Finally, we hypothesized that enjoyment of work
would be positively related to positive spillover
(Hypothesis 3b) and negatively related to negative
spillover (Hypothesis 3a). Thus, Hypothesis 3b was
confirmed, whereas Hypothesis 3a was not confirmed. The results indicate that people with high
scores on enjoyment of work transfer positive feelings
from one arena to another, but that transfer of
negative feelings from one arena to another seems to
be unrelated to enjoyment of work.
Drawing upon our data, it seems that enjoyment
of work covaries with positive spillover, whereas
drive is related to negative spillover. The general
assumption that the work domain has more of an
influence on family life than family life has on work
(Burke & Greenglass, 1987; Leiter & Durup, 1996)
was supported by our data. However, research and
the thinking about the relationships between workaholism and spillover are still in their infancy. More
studies on the relationship between workaholism and
spillover are therefore obviously needed.
Theoretical and practical implications
The findings of this study may be of practical interest
to clinicians, business consultants, and human
resource management, as well as to employees and
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER
employers. The WorkBAT seems to have some
limitations in terms of its psychometric properties,
particularly the work involvement subscale. Future
studies with this scale should preferably use latent
scores in order to reduce the error variance of its
measurement. Revision of the scale by, for example,
the deletion of poor items and/or adding better ones
is another example of how one could address the
psychometric problems with the work involvement
subscale. The underlying conceptualization of workaholism reflected by WorkBAT could also be questioned due to the fact that the different
subdimensions often show opposite relationships
with different constructs (Andreassen et al., 2011).
In line with this finding, it has been argued that the
work involvement and the enjoyment of work
subscales are simply not relevant. From a behavioural perspective, it has been argued that work involvement as an attitude does not adequately represent
workaholism. Likewise, work enjoyment, either high
or low, seems not to be a defining aspect of
workaholism, as there may be workaholics who like
their jobs and others who do not (Mudrack, 2006).
Thus, development of new instruments designed to
operationalize workaholism in a more parsimonious
way seems therefore warranted in future research.
Study limitations
Some cautionary comments should be made about
our findings. Some of the scales had rather low
internal consistency, which may have weakened
the strength of the relationships investigated in the
present study. This pertains in particular to the work
involvement subscale, which has shown rather poor
psychometric properties in several previous studies
(Burke, 2000; Kanai et al., 1996; McMillan et al.,
2002).
We have no information about the nonrespondents, and data may have been distorted by selfselection bias. Due to the fact that the sample was
highly educated (87% had a university degree) and
54% were managers, the variance of the different
variables may be restricted, hence making it difficult
to find significant associations between the workaholism components and the other constructs. In
addition, the results from this highly selected sample
may be difficult to generalize to other samples with
other worker characteristics. It should be noted that
we could not draw any conclusions about causality in
the present study as our design was cross-sectional.
Thus, the current research design gives no indication
of the sequence of events—whether spillover causes
workaholism, whether workaholism causes spillover,
or whether the relationship between these constructs
may be better explained by yet unidentified third
variables.
85
Longitudinal data, collateral reports, and objective
behavioural data are difficult to obtain, but they
would thus be an advantage in terms of elucidating
the ‘‘true’’ relationships between work and family
domains. Moreover, many other individual and
organizational variables, in addition to those reported in this study, certainly play an important role
in these matters. Furthermore, we relied on singlesource self-report data, and potential effects from
common method variance can thus have influenced
our results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Hence, negative items may correlate with
negative items, and positive with positive items,
perhaps reflecting personality dimensions such as
negative affectivity and social desirability (Spector,
2006).
Recommendations for future research
Future research should investigate the relationship
between workaholism and spillover by the use of
longitudinal designs, making it possible to reveal
some possible causal relationships between these
constructs. Longitudinal designs would also be
valuable, investigating how adding children to a
family may affect spillover. The field seems to be in
need of effective treatments for counteracting, at
least, the negative aspects of workaholism and some
suggestions concerning possible interventions have
been made (Burwell & Chen, 2008). Still, no wellcontrolled treatment study for workaholism has so
far been published and future research should therefore address this topic.
REFERENCES
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., Molde, H., & Pallesen, S. (2011).
‘‘Workaholism’’ and potential outcomes in well-being and
health in a cross-occupational sample. Stress and Health, 27,
e209–e214.
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The
relationship between ‘‘workaholism’’, basic needs satisfaction
at work, and personality. European Journal of Personality, 24,
3–17.
Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The
relationship between strong motivation to work, ‘‘workaholism’’, and health. Psychology and Health, 22, 615–629.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of
organizational commitment to organizational effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1–14.
Aziz, S., Adkins, C. T., Walker, A. G., & Wuensch, K. L. (2010).
Workaholism and work-life imbalance: Does cultural origin
influence the relationship? International Journal of Psychology,
45, 72–79.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. (2009). Workaholism
and relationship quality: A spillover-crossover perspective.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 23–33.
Berridge, D., Penn, R., & Ganjali, M. (2009). Changing attitudes to
gender roles. A longitudinal analysis of ordinal response data
from the British Household Panel Study. International Sociology, 24, 346–367.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
86
ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The
relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, life
satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47, 469–477.
Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological
and physical well-being consequences. Stress Medicine, 16, 11–
16.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1987). Work and family. In C. L.
Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 273–320). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality
correlates of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223–1233.
Burwell, R., & Chen, C. P. (2008). Positive psychology and worklife balance: A new approach in treating workaholism. In R. J.
Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture:
Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 295–313). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Delgado, E. A., & Canabal, M. E. (2006). Factors associated with
negative spillover from job to home among Latinos in the United States. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 92–112.
Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high cost of
workaholism, the rewards of recovery. San Francisco, CA:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Frone, M. R., Russel, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents
and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the
work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–
78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. (1997). Relation of
work–family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–336.
Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family:
Direct and indirect domain specific determinants of work–
family conflict. Personnel Review, 30, 502–522.
Fujimoto, T., Kotani, S., & Suzuki, R. (2008). Work–family
conflict of nurses in Japan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17,
3286–3295.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of
resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict
between work and family roles. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 76–88.
Grosswald, B. (2003). Shift work and negative work-to-family
spillover. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30, 31–58.
Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002).
Work–family spillover and daily reports of work and family
stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51, 28–36.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the
work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the
correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and
family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.
Humbert, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2008). ‘‘I have no life other than
work’’—Long working hours, blurred boundaries and family
life: The case of Irish entrepreneurs. In R. J. Burke & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 159–181). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Kanai, A., Wakabayashi, M., & Fling, S. (1996). Workaholism
among employees in Japanese corporations: An examination
based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scales.
Japanese Psychological Research, 38, 192–203.
Keene, J. R., & Reynolds, J. R. (2005). The job costs of family
demands: Gender differences in negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 275–299.
Kelly, R. F., & Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/family role strain
among employed parents. Family Relations, 34, 367–374.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types
of work–family interface: Well-being correlates of negative and
positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 47, 149–162.
Kubota, K., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N., Takahashi, M., Nakata,
A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Association between workaholism and sleep problems among hospital nurses. Industrial
Health, 48, 864–871.
Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home and in-between:
A longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 32, 29–47.
Lundberg, U., Mardberg, B., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1994).
The total workload of male and female with white collar
workers as related to age, occupational level, and number
of children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35, 316–
327.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working
with them. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh,
N. V. (2002). A multifaceted validation study of Spence
and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 357–
368.
McMillan, L. H. W., & O’Driscoll, M.P. (2004). Workaholism and
health: Implications for organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 509–519.
Melinda, C., & Jacobs, J. A. (2008). Working time for married
couples in 28 countries. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences and choices
(pp. 137–157). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Mudrack, P. E. (2006). Understanding workaholism: The case for
behavioral tendencies. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research companion
to working time and work addiction (pp. 108–128). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007).
Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: A
conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, 111–136.
Perrone, K. M., Wright, S. L., & Jackson, Z. V. (2009).
Traditional and nontraditional gender roles and work–family
interface for men and women. Journal of Career Development,
36, 8–24.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Rain, J. S., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1991). A current
look at the job satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship:
Review and future considerations. Human Relations, 44,
287–307.
Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for
workaholics, their partners and children and the clinicians who
treat them. New York, NN: New York University Press.
Robinson, B. E. (1999). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical
implications for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 35, 260–
268.
Robinson, B. E., Flowers, C., & Carroll, J. (2001). Work stress and
marriage: A theoretical model examining the relationship
between workaholism and marital cohesion. International
Journal of Stress Management, 8, 165–175.
Russo, J. A., & Waters, L. E. (2006). Workaholic worker type
differences in work–family conflict: The moderating role of
supervisor support and flexible work scheduling. Career
Development International, 11, 418–439.
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Being driven
to work excessively hard. The evaluation of a two-factor
measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. CrossCultural Research, 43, 320–348.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013
WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008).
Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a
kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173–203.
Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Shimazu, A., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2009). How job
demands affect an intimate partner: A test of the spillovercrossover model in Japan. Journal of Occupational Health, 51,
239–248.
Shimazu, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Is workaholism good or
bad for employee well-being? The distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees.
Industrial Health, 47, 495–502.
Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2008). Workaholism as discretionary
time investment at work: An experience-sampling study.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 109–
127.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9,
221–232.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition,
measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 58, 160–178.
87
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Shimazu, A. (2010). The push and
pull of work: The difference between workaholism and work
engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp.
39–53). Hove, UK: Psychological Press.
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005).
Workaholism in The Netherlands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Applied
Psychology, 54, 37–60.
Vallerand, R. J., Paquet, Y., Philippe, F. L., & Charest, J. (2010).
On the role of passion for work in burnout: A process model.
Journal of Personality, 78, 289–312.
Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure
demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 50, 749–761.
Wharton, A. S., & Blair-Loy, M. (2006). Long work hours and
family life: A cross-national study of employees’ concerns.
Journal of Family Issues, 27, 415–436.
Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (1992). Work, families, and organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Original manuscript received August 2010
Revised manuscript received July 2011
First published online January 2012