Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one construct, competing measures Nearest construct by meaningjob embeddednesscompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to workaholism is job embeddedness.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The model that treats workaholism as a profile built from three separate attitudes: how involved a person is in work, how strongly they feel driven to work, and how much they enjoy it. Spence and Robbins's 1992 Workaholism: Definition, Measurement, and Preliminary Results introduced the Workaholism Battery and defined the true workaholic as high in involvement and drive but low in enjoyment, apart from the happier work enthusiast who also enjoys the work. The thing being measured is the same underlying pull toward excessive work as in the other models here, but this framing splits it into three trait-like scores rather than counting hours or scoring an addiction.[1]
The model that reduces workaholism to two components: working hard beyond what is required, and feeling an inner compulsion that makes it hard to stop. Schaufeli, Taris, and Van Rhenen's 2008 Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-being? operationalised it this way and showed it stands apart from work engagement and from burnout. The underlying condition is the same excessive, compulsive working named across this page, but here it is pinned to just these two measured components rather than a three-part attitude profile or a clinical addiction test.[2]
The model that frames the same overworking as an addiction, with the language and risk logic of other behavioral addictions: tolerance, withdrawal, loss of control, and harm carried into health and family life. Robinson's 1999 The Work Addiction Risk Test built a screening measure meant to flag people at risk, treating compulsive work as a clinical problem to be identified and treated. The referent is the same driven overwork as in the trait and component models, but calling it an addiction imports a medical frame, a risk cutoff, and a path to intervention that the other framings do not assume.[3]
The model that tries to unify the scattered definitions by casting workaholism as a bundle of an affective pull toward work, an obsessive way of thinking about it, and the behavior of working excessively. Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman's 2007 Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Workaholism reviewed the competing measures and proposed this affect, cognition, and behavior structure to bring them under one roof. It names the same compulsive overwork as the others, but rather than offering yet another scale it argues about which parts the earlier measures were each capturing, and how they should fit together.[4]
Next
See how workaholism sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct