A predictive study of antecedent variables of workaholism.
Hameed, Amjad and Hameed (2013) carried out a study to determine whether personality could predict workaholism, demonstrating that personality is related to workaholism and that workaholism may be considered a stable factor of personality (Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen, 2006; Aziz & Tronzo, 2011). Regarding Drive, Burke et al., (2006) found positive relations with all the personality factors except openness to experience. Concerning Work Enjoyment, Abou-Deif, Rashed, Sallam, Mostafa and Ramadan, (2013) found positive relationships with all personality factors. On another hand, Mudrack (2004) explored the relationship between obsessive-compulsive personality traits and workaholism, and came to the conclusion that high work involvement, together with high scores in obsessive-compulsive traits, seems to increase the likelihood of working unnecessarily hard.
As regards engagement, Van Beek, Taris, Schaufeli and Brenninkmeijer (2014) indicate that workaholism is associated with having a prevention focus, whereas engagement is associated with having a promotion focus. Thus, workaholism was negatively related to job satisfaction and job performance, and positively related to business volume, whereas engagement was positively associated with job satisfaction and job performance and negatively associated with turnover intention. Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kamiyama and Kawakami (2014) concluded that although these two constructs (workaholism and engagement) relate positively to a slight degree, they in fact constitute two different concepts. They found that workaholism has negative consequences whereas engagement has positive consequences in terms of wellbeing and performance. Consequently, we need to prevent workaholism at work and promote engagement.
Salanova, Grau, Llorens and Schaufeli (2001) showed that self-efficacy generates wellbeing and found a positive relationship between work, self-efficacy and workaholism, whereby high levels of self-efficacy could be related to high levels of workaholism. (Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007). Along these lines, Burke et al., (2006) concluded, as Spence and Robbins (1992) had put forward, that self-efficacy relates positively and significantly to workaholism, in other words, the more self-efficacious, the more workaholic, and vice versa. Similarly, Del Libano, Llorens, Salanova and Shaufeli (2012) demonstrated that self-efficacy related positively to one of the two dimensions of workaholism, more specifically, overworking. Furthermore, Mazzetti, Schaufeli and Guglielmi (2014) demonstrated empirically that a work environment characterised by a climate of overworking can promote workaholism, especially for workers with high achievement motivation, perfectionism, responsibility and selfefficacy. The latter two were only related to workaholism when they coincided with an overwork climate.
If lifestyle is taken into account, Bakker, Demerouti, Oerlemans and Sonnentag (2013) found a negative association between the time devoted each day to activities related to night work, and wellbeing at the time of going to bed, as well as a positive association between the time dedicated to doing physical exercise during the day, and feeling well at bedtime. They found that these associations were even stronger in the case of workaholics. This indicates that, for workaholics, what they do in their free time is more important than it is for other people. Hence positive states increase more for workaholics when they spend time doing sport or physical exercise than when they spend time in work-related activities.
Furthermore, it has been shown that workaholics do not seem to benefit from social activities after work in the same way as non workaholics do, and that this effect is irrespective of the degree of workaholism, which goes to show that workaholism has a negative influence on wellbeing (Bakker et al., 2013). Virick and Baruch (2007) found that high scores in Driven reduced the balance between working life and satisfaction with life, but improved employee performance. Furthermore, a positive association was found between work enjoyment and life satisfaction. Along these lines, Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kubota and Kawakami (2012) demonstrated that workaholism was related to an increase in bad health and less satisfaction with life. On a family level, workaholics have less time to devote to their family, which negatively affects the quality of their relationship with their spouse and leads to conflict (Shimazu, Demerouti, Bakker, Shimada, & Kawakami, 2011).
The general objective of the present research study is to develop a prediction model of workaholism using the following indicators: personality, engagement, self-efficacy, the obsessive-compulsive component (ICO), satisfaction with life and lifestyle. The study puts forward the following objectives:
Objective 1: If work drive (driven) is influenced by personality, engagement, self-efficacy, ICO, satisfaction with life and lifestyle, then we can accurately predict work drive using a model that incorporates these predictors.
Objective 2: If work enjoyment is influenced by personality, engagement, self-efficacy, ICO, satisfaction with life and lifestyle, then we can accurately predict work enjoyment using a model that incorporates these predictors.
Objective 3: If working excessively is influenced by personality, engagement, self-efficacy, ICO, satisfaction with life and lifestyle, then we can better predict working excessively using a model that incorporates these predictors.
Objective 4: If working compulsively is influenced by personality, engagement, self-efficacy, ICO, satisfaction with life and lifestyle, then we can better predict working compulsively using a model that incorporates these predictors.
The sample consisted of 513 people currently in employment, living in Spain (48.1 % men, 51.9 % women). Their average age was 43.13 years ([SD.sub.age]= 11.61). Their marital status: married (62.2%), de facto spouse (7.8%), single (18.7%), divorced / separated (10.3%) and widowed (1.0%). As regards their educational level, the distribution was as follows: No educational qualifications (1.9%), completed primary education (25.5%), completed secondary education (43.3%), three-year university degree or technical engineering degree (14.2%), five-year university degree, higher engineering degree or architect's degree (9.9%) and master and/ or doctorate (5.1%).
In order to measure workaholism we used the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT; Burke, 1999, 2001; Burke, Richardsen, & Martinussen, 2002; McMillan, Brady, O'Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002; Spence & Robbins, 1992) in the version adapted into Spanish by Boada-Grau et al. (2013) with a 5-point Likert scale, made up of two factors: driven (12 items, a= .82) e.g., "9.- Me siento obligado a trabajar duro incluso cuando no es agradable [I feel obliged to work hard even when it is not pleasant]" and work enjoyment (7 items, a= .83) e.g. "5.- Mi trabajo es tan interesante que a menudo no parece trabajo [My job is so interesting that it often doesn't seem like work]". The response format is a 5-point Likert scale (1= Totally disagree, to 5=Totally agree).
The Spanish version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS; Schaufeli & Taris, 2004), adapted by Del Libano, Llorens, Salanova and Schaufeli (2010). With a two factor structure: "F1.- Working excessively (WkE)" made up of 10 items (a=.67) e.g., "14.- Generalmente estoy ocupado, llevo muchas cosas entre manos [I'm usually busy, I have a lot on things to do]" and "F2.- Working compulsively (WkC)" consisting of 7 items (a= .77) e.g., "14.- Me siento culpable cuando tengo un dia libre en el trabajo [I feel guilty when I have a day off at work]". The response format is a 5-point Likert scale (1= Rarely to 5 = Almost always).
The Inventario de Personalidad ([Personality Inventory] OPERAS; Vigil-Colet, Morales-Vives, Camps, Tous, & LorenzoSeva, 2013), an instrument based on the Big Five personality factors. This scale consists of 40 items which are answered using a 5-point scale. It measures: Extraversion (alpha = .86) e.g., "8.- Me desenvuelvo bien en situaciones sociales [I perform well in social situations]", emotional stability ([alpha] = .86) e.g., " 9.- A menudo tengo el animo por el suelo [I often feel down] ", responsibility ([alpha]=.77) e.g., "16.- Dejo las cosas a medias [ I leave things half done] ", friendliness ([alpha]=.71) e.g. "12.- Respeto a los demas [I respect others]" and openness to experience ([alpha]=.81) e.g. "35.Siento curiosidad por el mundo que me rodea [I'm curious about the world around me]". The response format is a 5-point Likert scale (1= Totally disagree, to 5=Totally agree).
The Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II; Walker & Hill-Polerecky, 1996), in the Spanish version adapted by SerranoFernandez, Boada-Grau, Gil-Ripoll and Vigil-Colet (2015). It is made up of 48 items and 4 subscales and is answered using a 4-point Likert scale. The factors are: Health responsibility, made up of 12 items (a = .81) , e.g. "7.- Leo o veo programas de television sobre la mejora de la salud [I read or watch TV programs about improving health]"; Physical activity, which is made up of 12 items, ([alpha] = .86) e.g." 3.- Sigo un programa de ejercicios planificados [I follow a planned exercise program]"; Nutrition, made up of 6 items, ([alpha] = .70) e.g. "23.- Como de 3 a 5 porciones de vegetales todos los dias [I eat 3-5 servings of vegetables each day] "; Spiritual growth and interpersonal relationships consisting of 18 items, (a = .88) e.g. "21.- Me siento satisfecho y en paz conmigo mismo (a) [I feel content and at peace with myself]". The response format is a 4-point Likert scale (1 = never to 4 = routinely).
The Spanish version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), drawn up by Atienza, Pons, Balaguer, & Garcia-Merita (2000). This a one factor scale (a = .84) made up of 5 items (e.g., "2.- Hasta ahora he conseguido de la vida las cosas que considero importantes /Up to now, I have achieved the things I think are important in life]". The response format is a 5-point Likert scale. (1= Totally disagree, to 5=Totally agree).
The Spanish version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Baessler & Schwarcer, 1996), adapted by Sanjuan, Perez and Bermudez (2000). This scale is a one-factor scale made up of 10 items, (a = .87); e.g., "8.- Puedo resolver la mayoria de los problemas si me esfuerzo lo necesario [If I make enough of an effort, I can solve most problems]". The response format is a 4-point Likert scale. (1= False to 4= true).
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). We used the Spanish version drawn up by Salanova, Schaufeli, Llorens, Peiro and Grau (2000). This is a three factor scale made up of 15 items, the first of which is vigour, made up of 5 items, (a = .80) e.g. "1.- En mi trabajo me siento lleno de energia [ In my work, I feel full of energy]". The second factor is dedication, made up of 5 items, (a = .92) e.g. "5.- Mi trabajo me inspira [My work inspires me]", and the last dimension is absorption, consisting of 5 items, (a = .75) e.g. "8.- Me dejo llevar por mi trabajo [I am driven by my work]". The response format is a 7-point Likert scale (1= Totally disagree, to 7=Totally agree).
We used non probabilistic sampling (Hernandez, Fernandez, & Baptista, 2000) also known as random accidental sampling (Kerlinger, 2001) to obtain the sample. The response rate was around 80%.
To analyse the data, multiple regressions were carried out following the stepwise option whereby the programme incorporates each predictive variable into the model depending to what extent it accounts for variance. We used the SPSS 20.0 programme.
The multiple linear regression models we performed were intended to test the effects that sixteen predictive variables have on four criterion variables that have to do with workaholism (Table 1).
The first model aims to analyse predictive capacity for the criterion variable driven (WorkBAT). In the model summary, we can observe that the predictive variables, perfectionism, absorption, satisfaction with life, growth, friendliness, nutrition and dedication, explain 37.9% of the variance of the criterion variable. The variable perfectionism is the one that predicts it to the highest extent, accounting for 16% of the variance. Among the most important aspects are the beta coefficient values. If we observe these coefficients, we can see that the following predictive variables were statistically significant: Dedication ([beta] = -.223), nutrition ([beta]= -.135), friendliness ([beta]= -.131), growth ([beta]= .337), satisfaction with life ([beta]= -.239), absorption ([beta]= .473), perfectionism ([beta]= .252). All of them were significant.
The second model aims to analyse to what extent it can predict the criterion variable work enjoyment (WorkBAT). In the model summary, we can observe that the predictor variables, absorption, responsibility for one's health, nutrition, growth, openness to experience, satisfaction with life and dedication account for 41.8% of the variance of the criterion variable, whereas the variable absorption, with 29.1% of the variance, stands out as the best predictor. The beta coefficient values were: Dedication ([beta]= -.202), satisfaction with life ([beta]= -.127), openness to experience ([beta]= -.124), growth ([beta]= .204), nutrition ([beta]= -.201), responsibility for one's health ([beta]= .221) and absorption ([beta]= .359).
The purpose of the third model was to analyse to what extent it can predict the criterion variable working excessively (DUWAS). In the model summary, we can observe that the variables absorption, satisfaction with life, perfectionism, self-efficacy, physical activity, emotional stability, responsibility for one's health and nutrition account for 20.1% of the variance of the criterion variable. The variable absorption appears to be the best predictor, with 10.8% of variance. The beta coefficients showed the following predictive variables to be statistically significant: Nutrition ([beta]= -.090), responsibility for one's health ([beta]= .138), emotional stability ([beta]= -.109), physical activity ([beta]= -.142), self-efficacy ([beta]= .187), perfectionism ([beta]= .127), absorption ([beta]= .297) and satisfaction with life ([beta]= -.173).
The purpose of the last model was to analyse to what degree it could predict the criterion variable working compulsively (DUWAS). In Table 1, we can see that the model, made up of the predictor variables perfectionism, absorption, satisfaction with life, self-efficacy, emotional stability, dedication, growth and nutrition, accounts for 19.7% of the variance of the criterion variable, whereas the variable perfectionism, with 9.5% of the variance, is the highest predictor. If we look at the beta coefficients, they indicate that the following predictor variables were statistically significant: Nutrition ([beta]= -.116), growth ([beta]= .136), dedication ([beta]= -.228), emotional stability ([beta]= -.149), self-efficacy ([beta]= .158), satisfaction with life ([beta]= -.153), absorption ([beta]= .335) and perfectionism ([beta]= .232).
The results outlined above point to the fact that certain variables have predictive power over the four factors of Workaholism under study. The first objective was partially confirmed, given that the best predictor model features seven variables: perfectionism, absorption and growth, and inversely, satisfaction with life, friendliness, nutrition and dedication. We found that the personality variable, friendliness, included in the model, was a negative predictor, contrary to the findings of authors such as Hameed et al. (2013), who found a positive relation between the traits extraversion, responsibility and neuroticism and the components of workaholism, and that openness to experience related negatively with driven. Furthermore, Burke et al. (2006), in the case of driven, found a positive relation with all the personality factors except openness to experience.
The engagement variables included in the model were absorption and, inversely, dedication. Shimazu et al. (2014) found a very weak positive relation between workaholism and engagement. On another hand, the predictive variable, self-efficacy, did not appear in the predictive model. Burke et al. (2006) however, indicate that selfefficacy relates positively and significantly with workaholism. As far as ICO is concerned, the perfectionism variable is included in the predictive model, whereas the variable excessive responsibility does not appear in the model. In this respect, Mudrack (2004), who examined the relationship between the obsessive-compulsive personality variables and workaholism, did not find a relation with the driven variable.
In our study, satisfaction with life was included in the predictive model as a negative predictor. Along these lines, Virick and Baruch (2007) found that high scores in driven decreased the balance between work life and satisfaction with life. As regards lifestyle, the predictive model includes growth and interpersonal relationships as positive and nutrition inversely, whereas no type of relation was found for responsibility for one's health and physical activity.
The second objective was partially verified, given that the best predictive model for work enjoyment featured the following seven variables: absorption, responsibility for one's health, growth and dedication, and inversely, nutrition, openness to experience and satisfaction with life. The only personality variable featured in the model was openness to experience, which had an inverse effect. Contrary to this finding, Abou-Deif et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between work enjoyment and all the personality factors. As regards engagement, the predictive model featured absorption and dedication. Some authors have found a very weak positive relation between workaholism and engagement (Shimazu et al., 2014).
On another hand, the self-efficacy variable was not included in the predictive model. This is contrary to Salanova et al. (2001), who tell us that self-efficacy generates wellbeing and who found a positive relation between work, self-efficacy and workaholism. Furthermore, high levels of self-efficacy could be related to high levels of workaholism (Ng et al., 2007). As far as obsessiveness and compulsiveness are concerned, the variables perfectionism and excessive responsibility do not appear in the predictive model. This is contrary to Mudrack's findings (2004) who, when he explored the relation between obsessive-compulsive personality traits and workaholism found that high work involvement, along with high scores in obsessive-compulsive traits lead to working unnecessarily.
Satisfaction with life appeared as a negative indicator in the predictive model, contrary to Virick and Baruch (2007), who found a positive association between work enjoyment and satisfaction with life. As regards lifestyle, the predictive model includes responsibility for one's health, growth and finally nutrition as a negative indicator, on the other hand it related positively with physical activity.
The third objective was confirmed in part, given that the best predictive model of working excessively contains eight variables. The direct variables were: absorption, perfectionism, self-efficacy and responsibility for one's health. And the inverse variables were: satisfaction with life, physical activity, emotional stability and nutrition. The personality variable that appeared in the predictive model and was negatively related was emotional stability. In this respect, Del Libano (2011) had already found a negative relation between friendliness and emotional stability and working excessively.
The engagement variable that appears in the model is absorption, whereas vigour and dedication do not appear in the model. This is contrary to Del Libano et al. (2012) who found a positive relation between the three engagement factors and working excessively. Another predictor variable that appeared in the regression model was self-efficacy. This finding is in keeping with the results found by Del Libano et al. (2012) who demonstrated that self-efficacy related positively to working excessively.
Perfectionism (ICO) is included in the prediction model whereas the variable excessive responsibility (ICO) is not. Furthermore, Shimazu et al. (2012) demonstrated that workaholism is related to poorer health and less satisfaction with life. In our study, satisfaction with life negatively predicts working excessively. As regards lifestyle, we can say that responsibility for one's health positively predicts working excessively, whereas physical activity and nutrition are negative predictors.
And the fourth objective was confirmed in part, given that we found that the best predictor model for working compulsively includes the variables perfectionism, absorption, self-efficacy and growth, and inversely, the variables satisfaction with life, emotional stability, dedication and nutrition. As far as personality variables are concerned, emotional stability inversely predicts working compulsively whereas no relation was found for the four remaining dimensions (extraversion, responsibility, friendliness and openness to experience). In this respect, Del Libano (2011) found an inverse relation between working compulsively and emotional stability.
As regards engagement, the variables included in the model were absorption and negatively, dedication. This is in line with the findings of authors such as Del Libano et al. (2012), who found a positive relation between working compulsively and absorption and a negative relation between working compulsively and dedication. On another hand the self-efficacy variable appears in the predictive model despite the fact that authors such as Del Libano et al. (2012) have demonstrated that self-efficacy
relates positively with the other dimension of workaholism, working excessively. As regards the obsessive-compulsive component (ICO), the perfectionism variable is included in the predictive model, whereas the variable responsibility does not appear in the model.
Satisfaction with life operates inversely in the predictive model, in line with the findings of authors such as Shimazu et al. (2012), who demonstrated that workaholism was associated with an increase in bad health and less satisfaction with life. As regards lifestyle, the prediction model included nutrition as an inverse predictor and growth as a direct predictor and no relation was found with responsibility for one's health and physical activity.
In line with all the above, the present research study contributes to our body of knowledge of workaholism in various aspects that include personality, engagement, self-efficacy, ICO, satisfaction with life and lifestyle. Hence, healthy lifestyle both personal and professional, may be affected by workaholism. The results present important practical implications concerning workaholism that should be taken into consideration for adequate strategic human resources management inside organisations. Most important among these are the need to promote life satisfaction, employee training in aspects concerning responsibility for one's health, physical activity and nutrition, and encouraging growth and personal relationships.
Abou-Deif, M. H., Rashed, M. A., Sallam, M. A. A., Mostafa, E. A. H., & Ramadan, W. A. (2013). Characterization of twenty wheat varieties by ISSR markers. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 15, 168-175.
Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to work, "workaholism", and health. Psychology & Health, 22, 615-629.
Atienza, F. L., Pons, D., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L. (2000). Propiedades psicometricas de la Escala de Satisfaccion con la Vida en adolescentes [Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Teen Scale]. Psicothema, 12, 314-319.
Aziz, S., & Tronzo, L. C. (2011). Exploring the relationship between workaholism facets and personality traits: A replication in american workers. The Psychological Record, 61, 269-286.
Baessler, J., & Schwarcer, R. (1996). Evaluacion de la autoeficacia: adaptacion espanola de la Escala de Autoeficacia General [Evaluation of efficacy: Spanish adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale]. Ansiedad y Estres, 2, 1-8.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 87-107.
Boada-Grau, J., Prizmic-Kuzmica, A. J., Serrano-Fernandez, M. J., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2013). Factorial structure, reliability and validity of the workaholism scale (WorkBAT): Spanish version. Anales de Psicologia, 29, 923-933.
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., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223-1233.
Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of Spence and Robbins' measures of workaholism components. Psychological Reports, 91, 1098-1104.
Del Libano, M. (2011). A journey into the heart of workaholism: Empirical findings from several multi-sample studies. Unpublished doctoral thesis, UJI. Castellon, Spain.
Del Libano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Validity of a brief workaholism scale. Psicothema, 22,143-150.
Del Libano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). About the dark and bright sides of self-efficacy: Workaholism and work engagement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 688-701.
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the workaholism battery (Work-BAT): Turkish form. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 609618.
Hameed, F., Amjad, S., & Hameed, A. (2013). The relationship between workaholism and personality. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 17, 898-907.
Hernandez, R., Fernandez, C., & Baptista, P (2000). Metodologia de la investigacion [Research methodology]. Mexico: McGraw-Hill.
Kerlinger, F. N. (2001). Investigacion del comportamiento: metodos de investigacion en Ciencias Sociales [Behavioral Research: Research methods in social sciences]. Mexico: McGraw-Hill.
Mazzetti, G., Schaufeli, W. B., & Guglielmi, D. (2014). Are workaholics born or made? Relations of workaholism with person characteristics and overwork climate. International Journal of Stress Management, 21, 227-254.
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.
Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490-508.
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.
Oates, W. E. (1968). On being a "workaholic" (a serious jest). Pastoral Psychology, 19, 16-20.
Salanova, M., Grau, R., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Exposicion a las tecnologias de la informacion, burnout y engagement: el rol modulador de la autoeficacia [Exposure to information technologies, burnout and engagement: The moderator role of self-efficacy]. Revista de Psicologia Social Aplicada, 11, 69-90.
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Llorens, S., Peiro, J. M., & Grau, R. (2000). Desde el "burnout" al "engagement": ?una nueva perspectiva? [From "burnout" to "engagement": A new perspective?] Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y las Organizaciones, 16, 117-134.
Sanjuan, P, Perez, A. M., & Bermudez, J. (2000). Escala de autoeficacia general: datos psicometricos de la adaptacion para la poblacion espanola [The general self-efficacy scale: Psychometric data from the Spanish adaptation]. Psicothema, 12, 509-513.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. (2004). The Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Unpublished manuscript.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287-314.
Serrano-Fernandez, M. J., Boada-Grau, J., Gil-Ripoll, C., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2015). Adaptacion espanola de la escala HPLP-II con una muestra de empleados. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Shimazu, A., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Shimada, K., & Kawakami, N. (2011). Workaholism and well-being among Japanese dual-earner couples: A spillover-crossover perspective. Social Science and Medicine, 73, 399-409.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kubota, K., & Kawakami, N. (2012). Do workaholism and work engagement predict employee well-being and performance in opposite directions? Industrial Health, 50, 316-321.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kamiyama, K., & Kawakami, N. (2014). Workaholism vs. work engagement: The two different predictors of future well-being and performance. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 18-23.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160-178.
Van Beek, I., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Brenninkmeijer, V. (2014). Heavy work investment: Its motivational make-up and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 46-62.
Vigil-Colet, A, Morales-Vives, F., Camps, E., Tous, J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Development and validation of the Overall Personality Assessment Scale (OPERAS). Psicothema, 25, 100-106.
Virick, M., & Baruch, Y. (2007, August). Factors determining workaholism, its positive and negative consequences. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
Walker, S. N., & Hill-Polerecky, D. M. (1996). Psychometric evaluation of Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II. Unpublished manuscript. University of Nebraska Medical Center.
Maria Jose Serrano-Fernandez (1), Joan Boada-Grau (2), Carme Gil-Ripoll (3) and Andreu Vigil-Colet (2)
(1) Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, (2) Universitat Rovira i Virgili and (3) EADA, Business School
Received: December 30, 2015 * Accepted: June 10, 2016
Corresponding author: Maria Jose Serrano-Fernandez
Facultad de Psicologia
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
08035 Barcelona (Spain)
Table 1 Summary of the predictive models for the four criterion variables Variables predictivas Factor 1 Work Bat Driven [DELTA][R.sup.2] [beta] corrected Ico.1.Perfec.Into.In .162 .252 Enga.3.Absorption .073 .473 Satis.with Life .052 -.239 Hplp.4.Growth.&.Inter.Rel. .049 .337 op.4.Friendliness .014 -.131 Hplp.3.Nutrition .014 -.135 Enga.2.Dedication .015 -.223 Hplp.1 Respons. Health -- -- op 5. Openness to Exp. -- -- Self-efficacy -- -- Hplp 2. Physical Act. -- -- op.2. Emotional Stability -- -- Total explained variance (%) 37.9 -- Variables predictivas Factor 2 Work Bat Work Enjoyment [DELTA][R.sup.2] [beta] corrected Ico.1.Perfec.Into.In -- -- Enga.3.Absorption .291 .359 Satis.with Life .008 -.127 Hplp.4.Growth.&.Inter.Rel. .025 .204 op.4.Friendliness Hplp.3.Nutrition .027 -.201 Enga.2.Dedication .011 .202 Hplp.1 Respons. Health .044 .221 op 5. Openness to Exp. .012 -.124 Self-efficacy -- -- Hplp 2. Physical Act. -- -- op.2. Emotional Stability -- -- Total explained variance (%) 41.8 -- Variables predictivas Factor 1 Duwas Working excessively [DELTA][R.sup.2] [beta] corrected Ico.1.Perfec.Into.In .019 .127 Enga.3.Absorption .108 .297 Satis.with Life .030 -.173 Hplp.4.Growth.&.Inter.Rel. -- -- op.4.Friendliness -- -- Hplp.3.Nutrition .005 -.090 Enga.2.Dedication - -- Hplp.1 Respons. Health .008 .138 op 5. Openness to Exp. -- -- Self-efficacy .010 .187 Hplp 2. Physical Act. .012 -.142 op.2. Emotional Stability .009 -.109 Total explained variance (%) 20.1 Variables predictivas Factor 2 Duwas Working compulsively [DELTA][R.sup.2] [beta] corrected Ico.1.Perfec.Into.In .095 .232 Enga.3.Absorption .018 .335 Satis.with Life .029 -.153 Hplp.4.Growth.&.Inter.Rel. .005 .136 op.4.Friendliness -- -- Hplp.3.Nutrition .011 -.116 Enga.2.Dedication .012 -.228 Hplp.1 Respons. Health -- -- op 5. Openness to Exp. -- -- Self-efficacy .015 .158 Hplp 2. Physical Act. -- -- op.2. Emotional Stability .012 -.149 Total explained variance (%) 19.7 Significance for all the data at p<.01
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||texto en ingles|
|Author:||Serrano-Fernandez, Maria Jose; Boada-Grau, Joan; Gil-Ripoll, Carme; Vigil-Colet, Andreu|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Bio-psycho-social correlates of the perceived crowding in different contexts.|
|Next Article:||Gender differences in mental health during the economic crisis.|