How to counter the ten myths about work addiction?: Three postulates for future research

Abstract

Background and aimReferring to Ten myths about work addiction reviewed by Griffiths, Demetrovics, and Atroszko in the Journal of Behavioral Addiction, three postulates were proposed to apply in future research on work addiction: (a) the clinical psychology perspective, (b) the systems approach, and (c) diversified and adequate methodologies.MethodsIn a narrative review, using theoretical assumptions and empirical data, postulates were discussed against myths.ResultsThe opportunities offered by the perspectives and new insights related to myths were presented.ConclusionIt appears that the three postulates may contribute to theoretical and methodological progress in future research on work addiction.

Beyond the myths about work addiction: Toward a consensus on definition and trajectories for future studies on problematic overworking

“…Although the distinction between work addiction and work engagement is currently fairly established (Andreassen, 2014;Clark, Michel, Zhdanova, Pui, & Baltes, 2016;Griffiths et al, 2018;Griffiths & Karanika-Murray, 2012;Karanika-Murray, Duncan, Pontes, & Griffiths, 2015;Quinones & Griffiths, 2015;Sussman, 2012), there is still need to address the findings related to different levels of work enjoyment and work involvement among those working compulsively (Loscalzo & Giannini, 2018a;Snir & Harpaz, 2012;Spence & Robbins, 1992). It appears that this could be explained to some extent by the stage of addiction or level of addiction, which somewhat parallels previously used classification of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence (see Malinowska, 2018). In order to address the issue of different levels of problematic behavior, subclasses of mild, moderate, and severe work addiction could be used analogically to the currently used diagnostic criteria of alcohol-use disorder (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013).…”

“…In a collaborative effort to integrate the existing knowledge on work addiction and delineate trajectories for future studies, eight commentaries by 15 authors responded to our deliberately provocative debate paper (Griffiths, Demetrovics, & Atroszko, 2018) concerning 10 proposed myths about work addiction (i.e., Andreassen, Schaufeli, & Pallesen, 2018;Kun, 2018;Lior, Abira, & Aviv, 2018;Loscalzo & Giannini, 2018a;Malinowska, 2018;Quinones, 2018;Sussman, 2018;Tóth-Király, Bőthe, & Orosz, 2018). The researchers participating in this debate are among authors with the highest number of papers on work addiction indexed in the Web of Science that were published during the past decade, and seven of these researchers wrote review papers on work addiction during that period (Andreassen, 2014;Griffiths et al, 2018;Griffiths & Karanika-Murray, 2012;Quinones & Griffiths, 2015;Sussman, 2012).…”

Is the Polythetic Approach Efficient in Identifying Potentially Addicted to Work Individuals? Comparison of the Polythetic Approach With the Item Response Theory Framework

“…To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating whether the polythetic approach is efficient in identifying potentially addicted to work individuals. This (Andreassen et al, 2018;Atroszko, 2019;Atroszko et al, 2019;Billieux et al, 2015;Griffiths et al, 2018;Kardefelt-Winther et al, 2017;Kun, 2018;Lior et al, 2018;Malinowska, 2018;Quinones, 2018;Starcevic et al, 2018;Sussman, 2018;Tóth-Király et al, 2018).…”

“…Additionally, the same researchers (Griffiths et al, 2018) initiated a much-needed debate between researchers in the area of work addiction regarding the current state of the art and directions for future studies of this phenomenon. The researchers agreed that work addiction represents a problematic behaviour; nevertheless, they also pointed out that "more highquality data are needed to have a better understanding of its symptoms, etiology, epidemiology, course, treatment, and prognosis" (Atroszko et al, 2019, p. 7; see also Andreassen, Schaufeli, & Pallesen, 2018;Griffiths et al, 2018;Kun, 2018;Lior, Abira, & Aviv, 2018;Malinowska, 2018;Quinones, 2018;Sussman, 2018;Tóth-Király, Bőthe, & Orosz, 2018). One of the recommended aims for future studies was to study the prevalence rates of work addiction in different working populations.…”

Work Addiction, Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, Burn-Out, and Global Burden of Disease: Implications from the ICD-11

“…The substantial increase in peer-reviewed papers concerning work addiction resulted in a recent unprecedented debate on the current status of this problematic behavior. It gave rise to consensus agreements among leading experts researching in the field regarding work addiction [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Most importantly, all of the experts viewed compulsive overworking as a genuine problem.…”