Workaholism, an excessive focus on work without apparent economic reason, has been conceptualized by Spence and Robbins (1992) as comprising three dimensions; Work Involvement (WI), Enjoyment (E), and Drive (D). The corresponding measure, the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT; Spence & Robbins, 1992) is widely used in workaholism research. Cluster and factor analyses in the present study of 320 employed participants failed to confirm Spence and Robbins' three‐scale model of workaholism: only E and D were apparent (α=.85 and .75, respectively). Convergent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between E and job satisfaction (.48), between D and intrinsic job motivation (.39) and with the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality—Workaholism scale (E=.27, D=.61). Criterion validity against hours worked was weak (E=.16, D=.22, respectively). Overall, the data endorse Kanai, Wakabayashi, and Fling's (1996) elimination of the Work Involvement factor in favour of a two‐factor structure of workaholism.

No abstract

No abstract