Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Master Thesis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Master Thesis

364

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
364
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Master Erasmus-Mundus on Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology (WOP-P)Analysis of the relation between WLB, organizational commitment and work-addiction Alberto Goycoolea Figueroa University of BarcelonaHOME UNIVERSITY TUTOR HOME UNIVERSITY TUTOR Dra. Marina Romeo Dra. Rita Berger University of Barcelona University of Barcelona HOST UNIVERSITY TUTOR Dr. Vincent Rogard Université Paris Descartes 1
  • 2. ABSTRACTThe objective of this study is to analyze the relation between the work life balance(hereafter abbreviated as WLB) and the commitment -of the WLB- with workaddiction and finally the study analyzes the relation between the organizationalcommitment and work addiction in a sample of 68 Chilean workers of the ServicesSector. In order to analyze the relation between the variables, questionnaires wereapplied to evaluate each one of the variables. Later on, the correlation betweenvariables was analyzed, by means of differences of averages, applying the ANOVAstatistical tool. Finally to obtain the magnitude (positive or negative) and directionof these relations, the Tukey post-hoc test was applied. We found significantrelations between the organizational commitment and WLB and between WLB withorganizational commitment; finally even though no significant relations were foundbetween the organizational commitment and work-addiction, we may speak about arelationship of tendencies between these variables. INTRODUCTIONIn the current organizational environment, Work Life Balance (WLB), work-addictionand commitment at work are topics that have been extensively developed; numerousresearchers have dedicated their efforts to these aspects (Byron, 2005; Kosek and Oseki,1998; Quijano et al, 2000; Burke, 2000; Robinson 2002; Brett and Stroh, 2003; Harpazand Snir, 2003; Spence and Robbins, 1992). Notwithstanding the preceding, studiesthat include the three concepts joined together have not been found. In this research, weintend to clarify such relations in regards to their probable dependence on WLB as mainelement of the two variables: commitment and work-addiction, as well as therelationships between these two.Starting with the aspects of WLB, which in general terms establishes the balancebetween life and work, what is of most interest to us about WLB is the conflict betweenwork and family and vice-versa. In the last decades, an increasing investigative interesthas grown about its impact on work, the roles that are played within the family (Kosek yOseki, 1998) and recent research has shown that this element constitutes a significantforce which influences the attitudes and behaviour at work of individuals (Rothausen,1999; Byron, 2005). One of the most accepted definitions for this family-work conflictanalyzes the interference between these environments –understood as an inter-rolesconflict- that would take place due to the simultaneous occurrence of the two or moresets of pressures, in such a way that the fulfilment of one of them makes the fulfilmentof the other more difficult (Kahn, Wolfe, Qhinn, Snoek and Rosenthal, 1964). In otherwords, the conflict may occur when the needs associated to the fulfilment of work rolesand family roles are mutually incompatible in some sense (Byron, 2005; Greenhaus &Beutell, 1985). This interference may arise when the demands of work or whenexcessive stress that one domain produces affects the other; for example, when theincrease of stress at work makes more difficult to feel relaxed at home (Allen, Herst,Bruck, y Sutton, 2000). Now, currently a variety of circumstances concur to the 2
  • 3. promotion of this conflict, among which we can mention the increase of single parents,families with two income sources and the life expectations that forces many people totake care of their parents, elderly adults (Byron, 2005).Moreover, participation in highly demanding jobs has become increasingly common. Inthese, a kind of competition is generated in order to be able to conciliate therequirements both of the work and the family roles, (Byron, 2005), where the fulfilmentof both roles in a responsive manner implies a high degree of commitment with eachone’s responsibilities. Later on, in an attempt to reach a balance between both, manyworkers undergo a conflict (Galinsky, Bond, & Friedman, 1993; Lee & Duxbury). It isin this relationship that where commitment appears as one of the variables to beanalyzed, given it has been studies as an element that may increase such conflict, at thetime when balancing the responsibilities of each role becomes unsustainable (Greenhaus& Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2003; Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996).Probably in the last decades, the relationship between the commitment of a worker andhis behavior within the organization has unchained a broader interest in the study of thisvariable (Quijano et al, 2000). This is so, given it is assumed that a positive attitudetowards the organization -reflected in a high level of commitments with it- is related tothe behaviors that are favorable to the organizational effectiveness (Quijano et al, 2000).The third concept included in this study is work-addiction, a phenomenon that lately hasbeen broadly researched (Azis et al 2006; Burke, 2000; Brett & Stroh, 2003; Harpaz &Snir, 2003) and currently shows clear social and economic efforts (Azis et al 2006).That is, a high degree of dedication to work is positively valued, which could become arequirement for economic success in the work environment (Azis et al 2006).Within the conceptual level, even though there is no commonly accepted definition ofwhat work-addiction is, (Scott, Moore y Miceli, 1997) agreement exists in consideringOates (1979) as the author who used for the first time the term work-addiction to referto a type of compulsive and uncontrolled behavior, that may become a risk for theindividual’s health, his/her family relations and his/her social functioning. Recentinvestigations have confirmed that over-dedication to work; common in work-addictpersons may negatively affect an adequate fulfillment of the work and family roles,facilitating the appearance of a conflict between work and family. (Bonebright 2000).WORK LIFE BALANCEThe traditional perspectives of WLB analysis have been developed mainly through fivedescriptive models: segmentation, overflowing, compensation, instrumental and conflict(Zedeck & Mosier 1990; Zedeck 1992; Guest 2002). 3
  • 4. This research will assume the models of overflowing and conflict as its bases; giventhese are the ones that have received more attention and study by researchers in theexplanations of the interrelation between family experiences and work given Byron2005; and Williams & Alliger, 1994. Attention to this models was possible given due tothe empirical results of the investigations that allow to support the hypothesis –on onehand- that work and family superimpose over each other, -an on the other- thatindividual emotions, talents, skills and behaviors overflow mutually among bothdomains (Kelly y Voydanoff, 1985).In regard to the overflowing between work and family experiences, this may be positiveor negative. Positive overflowing is related to an increase of the persons’ welfarethrough a work-family relation; whereas the negative overflowing is related withconflict derived from that relation (Greenhaus & Parsuraman, 1999; Stevens, Minnotte,Mannon & Kiger, 2007). In this context if the time and energy necessary for thefulfillment of a role prevent the fulfillment of the other –precisely due to the restrictionsof time and energy- we are before a conflict between these roles (Zedeck & Mosier,1990; Adams et al., 1996). For example, the conflict between the familiar and workroles, is a type of conflict where the fulfillment of the requirements of each onebecomes incompatible, hence participation in one of these roles, makes more difficultparticipating in the other (Thomas el al., 1995, Grenhaus y Beutell, 1985).The two forms of conflict work-family or family-work come from the interferencebetween the different activities necessary to develop each one of the roles.Among the family elements that may contribute to the generation of work-familyconflicts (from now on FWC) some authors mention elements that include the couple’srequirements and taking care of others, such in the case of children (Kirchmeyer, 1992),sick or handicapped adults (Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton & Neal, 1994) and care ofelderly adults (Scharlach, 1995). Members of double-income families, those fromfamilies that have only one of the parents and families with minor children, have moreprobability to experience conflict FWC (Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985).Analyzing the elements of work that would influence both conflicts (WFC-FWC) one ofthe most studied is expressed as excessive demands of time at work, incompatibleschedules and stress caused by the desire of people to fulfill their duties both at workand at home (Eagle, Miles & Icengole, 1997)In regard to the direction of the interference in the work-family conflict, it can be statedthat there is a mutual relation between the WFC and FWC conflict, upon the assumptionthat for example, if an overload at work starts to interfere with the family obligations,these obligations may start to interfere with the obligations at work (Frone et al, 1992; 4
  • 5. Parasuraman, Grenhaus & Granrose, 1992). Consequently, both directions of the work-family conflict should be analyzed (Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, 2000).At this time, when the perspective of the interaction between these environmentsappears as necessary in this investigation, given it is coherent with the approach of theoverflowing and conflict that we explained before. The interaction perspective is basedin Meijman & Mulder (1998) effort and recovery theory, this theory indicates that theeffort that the exposure to the work load needs is associated with short term psycho-physiological reactions (for example: the heart beat acceleration, increase of hormonalsecretion and changes in humor); which would be adaptive and reversible at thebeginning (recovery after the ending of the work load), however it becomes a negativereaction (psychosomatic symptoms, fatigue) if there is no possibility for the organism torecovery in front of the work load. If a work post does not allow the person to regulatethe demands of the post, or at least strategically adjust his/her work, in such a way thatthe persons has to make an over-effort to comply with it, it would generate a negativeconsequence (stress-fatigue) that would produce a negative overflow on the otherperson’s activities, at his home with his/her (Guerts et al. 2005).ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENTIn regard to the commitment variable, this study has taken the perspective adopted bythe ASH team (acronym of the initial letters of Human Team Audit in Spanish) of theDepartment of Human Psychology of the University of Barcelona that has elaborated aset of instruments to carry out this type of audits in organizations. Theconceptualization of the commitment variable and the instrument to measure it, are partof the audit centered in the quality of RRHH of the company (Quijano et al 2000)From the conceptual and theoretical point of view, this position has incorporated thecontributions of integrating proposals upon the organizational commitment as those ofMayer & Allen and O¨Reilly & Chatman (Quijano et al 2000).From this perspective, organizational commitment is understood as a psychological linkthat the workers establish with the organization for different reasons; this proposal takesinto consideration the proposals posed by Luna (1986). This perspective considers asingle attitudinal nature of commitment that includes affects, cognition and alsobehavioral predispositions (Quijano et al 2000).Now, in regard to the dimensionality of commitment, in an analysis of the structure ofthe concepts presented in the ASH model, evidence has been found of the singledimensionality of the commitment concept wit a reliability index of (0.779) (Quijano S.ENOP Presentation 2007, paper under preparation). 5
  • 6. WORK LIFE BALANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENTThe work and family environments have different roles associated to them, and we willanalyze if the organizational commitment –understood as the affective link of theindividual with the organization- may have incidence over the work and family conflict.In this relationship, commitment has been studied as an element that may increase theindicated conflict if it is not possible to balance the responsibilities in each one of these(Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell,2003; Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996).The overload is a role that causes direct and indirect effects on WFC, (Frone et al.,1997) and it may take to a commitment that consumes time for this role. Thus, theoverload in work would be positively related to the commitment of time dedicated tofamily, against the commitment dedicated to work (Frone et al., 1997, Parasuraman etal., 1996). In this sense, if the overload on a role implies more dedication of time forthis role in detriment of the other one, it becomes a source of pressure that favors WFC,because to have much to do within a limited time, tends to produce pressure symptomssuch as stress, fatigue, irritability –among others- which create incompatibilitiesbetween work and family, due to the evident difficulties to comply with the demandsrequired by those roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)Then, if the overload in one role negatively affects the other role, it may be possible thata negative relation would emerge between WFC and commitment. Results form ameta-analysis of the relationship of WFC and organizational commitment, show thatindividuals who experience negative conflicts between the work and family roles –inother words conflict of work caused to the family or conflict of family caused to work-show a lower level of organizational commitment (Kossek & Ozeki, 1999). From theperspective of interaction between work and family, Gourds (2005) found a negativerelation between home / work interference with organizational commitment (r.-13, p.001), suggesting that the greater the interference between home and work is, workerswould feel a weaker organizational commitment.On the other hand, there are also studies that put forward the benefits of organizationalcommitment in the performance of professional and family roles. If persons couldcombine in a good manner their family and labor roles, responding to the demandsassociated to the performance of both roles, they experience a greater personalsatisfaction than that of people who basically focuses in a single role (Perrone, 1999).Sometimes the performance of a single role may positively overflow to other roles. Forexample Barnett (1994) has found that the positive experience as a husband or father,positively moderates the relationship with the labor stress and psychological problems.Lennon y Rosenfeld (1992) found out that individuals who fulfill several roles and havea high level of involvement in their work and familiar roles, the latter reports them a 6
  • 7. greater level of self-esteem. Similar results were reported by Harenstam y Bejerot(2001), who suggest that people who are highly committed both with their families andin their work show a better sense of welfare.With this background, we present the first Hypothesis of this study: Hypothesis 1: Commitment to work will be related with the work-family conflict (WFC),WORK-ADDICTIONSince Oates in the year 1968 coined the term work-addiction, this has been defined(Cherrington, 1980; Mosier, 1983; Killinger, 1993; Porter 1996; Spence y Robbins;Robinson etc.) as well as studied from diverse and sometimes opposed perspectives(Korn el., 1987; Macholowitz, 1980; Schaef and Fassel, 1988; Naughton, 1987;Killinger, 1993; Oates 1971; Schaef and Fassel, 1988; Porter 1996; Burke 2004).Thus, for example some authors define it as a form of irrational implication with work(Cherrington; 1980) or as a loss of emotional stability and a need of having control andpower in an attempt to obtain approval and success (Killinger, 1993). Also, empiricalapproaches define work-addiction in terms of the hours worked, and consider thataddiction occurs when they add up or surpass fifty hours per week (Mosier, 1983). Ithas been understood as an excessive involvement at work as well, demonstrated bynegligence in other areas of life, such as family, based upon internal motives to hold onwith the behavior rather than due to the real demands of the job or the organization(Porter, 1996).Although this diversity of perspectives exists, there is evidence in the literature that it isbased on the presence of two dominant visions to study work-addiction. These areSpence and Robbins vision and Robinson’s vision.Spence & Robbins (1992) consider that the work-addict is a person who is highlyinvolved in his work, compelled to do it by internal pressures and with a low capacity toenjoy it. In this definition three components stand out: dedication behavior, itscompulsive character and the low capacity to enjoy what he/she is doing.In order to measure work-addiction Spence & Robbins (1992) have prepared the“Workaholism Battery” upon the basis of the aforementioned definition made by theauthors. The consistency data of each one of the sub-scales show consistency greaterthan 0,67 in a sample of 368 social workers. 7
  • 8. Applying a cluster analysis system they have elaborated six types of work-addicts:work-addicts, enthusiasts of work, enthusiastic work-addicts, non-committed workers,relaxed workers, and disappointed workers. This typology comes from the differentpatterns that are obtained with the three scales. This model has been an importantcontribution to the description and differentiation of work-addicts typology.The second vision, in this case that of Robinson’s defines work-addiction as anexcessive preoccupation about work that often implies a detriment in the worker’shealth, his/her intimate interpersonal relations and his/her participation in his/herchildren’s care. (Robinson, 1999). This author indicates that work-addicts arefrequently perfectionist individuals who get their personal valuation from their work(Robinson, 1999). In this definition the implications of work-addiction stand our overthe person’s health and the family system. In this research we will precisely deal withthe relations between work and family, this takes us to adopt Robinson’s definition inthis investigation.Robinson has made work-addiction operative through the development of the WorkAddiction Risk Test (WART, Robinson, 1998b), this is an instrument that contains 25items prepared starting with the habitual descriptions of work-addicts. The time-framereliability in a two week term, with 151 university students, was 0,83 and theCrombach’s alpha consistency was 0,85. Later on, using a factorial analysis of each oneof the sub-scales of the WART test, he confirmed that work-addiction is a multi-dimensional concept, that may have three dimensions with their respective Crombach’salpha values: a) Compulsive tendencies, ª 0,9 b) Inability to control work habits ª0,6and c) A self-absorption with communication difficulties. ª0,68 (Flower & Robinson2002).In a study carried out by Robinson and Post (1995) using WART in a group of 107workaholics grouped in a “Workaholics Anonymous” association, they found that thehigh scores were associated to six of the seven familiar mal-functioning indexes.Robinson would indicate that work-addicts frequently are perfectionist persons whoobtain their personal valuation from their work (Robinson, 1999).WORK-ADDICTION AND WORK LIFE BALANCEAs previously mentioned, we will understand the work–family and family–workconflicts (WFC-FWC), as situations where the pressures to fulfill one of the roles makesthe fulfilling of the other role incompatible, that means when the fulfillment of the workroles and those of the family are incompatible among each other (Greenhaus et al,1985). 8
  • 9. Russo and Waters (2006) have confirmed that excessive dedication of time dedicated towork by workaholics interferes in a significant and negative manner with the fulfillmentof the need of the family role, generating conflict between work and family.The Robinson’s work-addiction model study explained that the dimension “overpreoccupation about work”, often implies a detriment in the work-addict’s health aswell as his/her intimate interpersonal relations and his/her participation in the care of thefamily and children (Robinson, 1999).Robinson (1999) considers that work-addiction is a symptom of a troubled familysystem, be it for a lack of compensations or by an excess of familiar conflicts(Robinson, 1999).According to this author, work-addiction would be inter-generational, an as it happenswith other psycho-social addictions, it would pass from generation to generationthrough a series of family processes and dynamics. From this perspective, work-addiction would be seen as a learned addictive response (Robinson, 1999). Thisposition is coincidental to that of Pietropinto (1986) who considers that the children ofwork-addicts learn that paternal love is contingent with the achievements, results andproductivity in general. They would learn that work and its results are what justify lifeand interpersonal relations; other values are conditioned to work and its results.Robinson (1998a) has found a possible indirect correspondence between the addictparents stress level and that of their children.Burke (2002) found that work-addicts perceive that their work post is very demanding,stressing and that it provides a minor support to the balance between work and theactivities out of it. There are also qualitative studies which suggest that organizationalculture implies high levels both of time and emotional commitment (Spence andRobbins, 1992).Taking into consideration the foregoing background, we will bring up the followinghypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Work-addiction would be related to high levels of work- family conflict (WFC) Hypothesis 3: Work-addiction would be related to high levels of family- work conflict (FWC) 9
  • 10. WORK ADDICTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENTThe high level of commitment to their work tasks that people feel with a company maybe related to work-addiction. As we have reviewed previously work-addicts assign acentral value in their lives to their work tasks, this tales them to experience acompulsive behavior of high work dedication (Robinson 1999). For work-addicts, thevalue of work is superior to personal relations, those with their fellow workers, friendsand family. This obsession for work takes them to a very high dedication and to assumemore and more work and tasks related with the organization.In a study about work-addiction and organizational results carried out by BURKE(2004), a positive and significant relationship between a high degree of commitmentwith the organization and work-addiction has been confirmed.Taking into consideration the proposed background, in this study the followinghypothesis will be brought up: Hypothesis 4: work-addiction would be related with high levels of commitment. METHODParticipantsSixty-eight Chilean workers collaborated in this study. They come from different laborsectors of the city of Santiago de CHILE. In regard to gender, the sample was made upby 47 women (69%) and 21 men (31%) of ages between 19 and 73 years (M=39,92;DT= 12,92). In regard to the family position, 60,3% reported to be married or livingwith a couple, 23,5% living with their parents, 13,2% living alone, and 2,9% respondedas “other”. 64,7% of participants worked in the services sector (hotel and cateringindustry – services), 19,1% in the education area, 13,2% in the health area and 3% inother areas. In regard to the type of work schedule, 48,6% had a fixed schedule and41,4% had a flexible schedule for entering or going out of work.InstrumentsThe socio-demographic characteristics of this study’s participants were evaluated bymeans of a questionnaire specifically designed for this investigation. 10
  • 11. In order to measure work-addiction, the Work Addiction Risk Test, WART (Robinson2002) was used. It consists in a 25 item questionnaire elaborated from the habitualdescriptions of workaholics. The answers are written in a Likert format with a fourpoint interval, and grading has a rank between 57 and 66 that would indicate a medianpresence and grading higher than 67 would indicate a clear presence of work-addiction.Level of confidence or reliability: Previous studies applying WART, have examined itsreliability, validity of contents, concurring reliability and analysis of its dimensionality.The time reliability in a term of two weeks with 151 university students was 0,83, andthe Crombach’s alpha consistency value was 0,85. The converging validity was 0,85.The converging validity in a sample of students using Pattern A measurements ofbehavior and anxiety, showed that the work-addicts tended to have higher marks in thebehavior and anxiety Pattern A. Linley, Brady, O’Driscoll and Marsch (2002) considerthat the WART test mainly evaluates the elements that are proper to Pattern A ofbehavior.The Crombach’s alpha reliability indices of the Sub-scales measured with WART, arefor: Compulsive Tendencies, ª 0,9; for Inability to control work habits ª0,6 and for self-absorption with communication difficulties ª0,68 (Flower and Robinson 2002).In this investigation the WART adaptation to the Spanish language made by the authorsFernández-Montalvo and Echeburúa, (1998) was used.In order to measure the Work Life Balance the Survey Work-homeInteraction*/NijmeGen, called SWING, designed by the authors: Sabine A. E. Geurts;Toon W. Taris; Michiel A. J. Kompier; Josje S. E.Dikkers; Madelon L. M. Van Hooff;Ulla M. Kinnunen (2005). This is a questionnaire with 9 items to measure FWC. Theanswers are recorded in a Likert format with 4 interval points. The followingdimensions have been evaluated: Interference Between Work and Family (WFC) andinterference of Family over Work (FWC). The Crombach’s alpha reliability indices forthese scale are (WFC) .84, and for the (FWC) scale, ª.75. (Geurts et al, 2005).For Commitment measurement the ASH COMMITMENT INSTRUMENT was used.This was developed by the ASH team of the Social Psychology Department ofUniversity of Barcelona. Out of 12 items in the questionnaire, 4 were used to measurecommitment as a single dimension concept. Answers are recorded in a Likert formatwith five interval points. The reliability indices of the ASH.ICI instrument have showna reliability index of 0.78. The confirmatory factorial analysis applied on thecommitment model gives an adjustment index of 0.954. (Quijano et al. 2000). Thus, inregard to commitments dimensionality, evidence has been found of the singledimensionality of the commitment concept, with a reliability index of 0.799, in ananalysis of the ASH model concepts (Quijano S. ENOP Presentation, 2007; paper underpreparation). 11
  • 12. All the applied questionnaires are shown in their original version in the AnnexesChapter.ProcedureThe data gathering was carried out at the place of each participant’s post of work,through a questionnaire that was handed out to the workers by a collaborator of theresearch, and once completed, was sent to the investigation team collaborator in aclosed envelope.Data analysisTo attain the proposed objectives, descriptive statistical analysis were carried out, usingthe SPSS 14.0 for Windows. Comparisons of averages were established by means ofANOVA, obtaining the correlation between the variables considered in the study. Inorder to establish the average comparisons among work-addiction, WLB andcommitment, the results of each one of the questionnaires were coded, to give for eachvariable, three groups that indicated the level of presence: low, medium or high of thevariable under study.To analyze the possible impact of different demographic variables of the sample,(Gender, Number of Children, Type of Schedule) both in WFC and FWC, averagescomparisons were carried out using ANOVA. After the application of ANOVA andwith the objective to be able to exactly determine where the significant differenceswere, the ‘a posteriori contrast’ test (Tukey’s post-hoc) was applied to all the analyzedrelations. RESULTSThe following are the results obtained through the application of questionnaires tomeasure work-addiction, WLB and organizational commitment.In the present study, one-way ANOVAs were applied to analyze if there weresignificant differences between organizational commitment, and work-familyconflict (WFC).1.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between organizational commitment and WFC 12
  • 13. Descriptives WHI 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1,0 8 2,181 ,8868 ,3135 1,439 2,922 1,2 3,7 2,0 30 2,630 ,8234 ,1503 2,322 2,937 1,0 4,0 3,0 30 2,074 ,5661 ,1033 1,863 2,285 1,0 3,3 Total 68 2,332 ,7658 ,0929 2,146 2,517 1,0 4,0In the comparative results of Table 1.1 it may be seen at a descriptive level that thereare differences in the averages between the level of commitment and WFC. It can bepointed out that the out of the three commitment groups, the larger difference in averageoccurs between the group that has the higher commitment level (2,074) and the groupthat has medium commitment level (2,630).1.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of WFC, according to level of organizational commitment. ANOVA WHI Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between (Combined) 4,837 2 2,418 4,562 ,014 Groups Linear Term Unweighted ,072 1 ,072 ,135 ,714 Weighted 1,376 1 1,376 2,596 ,112 Deviation 3,460 1 3,460 6,527 ,013 Within Groups 34,459 65 ,530 Total 39,296 671.3. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of WFC, according to level of organizational commitment. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: WHI Tukey HSD Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval (I) VI COMPROMISO (J) VI COMPROMISO (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1,0 2,0 -,4491 ,2897 ,275 -1,144 ,246 3,0 ,1065 ,2897 ,928 -,588 ,801 2,0 1,0 ,4491 ,2897 ,275 -,246 1,144 3,0 ,5556* ,1880 ,012 ,105 1,006 3,0 1,0 -,1065 ,2897 ,928 -,801 ,588 2,0 -,5556* ,1880 ,012 -1,006 -,105 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 13
  • 14. The Variance Analysis (ANOVA) indicates statistically significant differences (p<0.05)between the level of organizational commitment and WFC (Table 1.2). To find out withprecision where exactly the significant differences are; that is, in order to determinewhere among which groups –according to their level of commitment- these differenceslie, the ‘a posteriori contrast’ test (Tukey’s post-hoc) was applied. As shown in Table1.3, this analysis revealed discrepancies between the groups with high and mediumlevels of commitment and the WFC.Therefore, Hypothesis 1 gets to be confirmed.To analyze if there are statistical differences between the measurements of work-addiction and work-family conflict (WFC), one-way ANOVAs were applied in thisstudy.2.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between addiction to the work and WFC Descriptives WHI 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1,0 35 1,987 ,5632 ,0952 1,794 2,181 1,0 3,2 2,0 18 2,222 ,5627 ,1326 1,942 2,502 1,0 3,0 3,0 15 3,267 ,6352 ,1640 2,915 3,618 1,8 4,0 Total 68 2,332 ,7658 ,0929 2,146 2,517 1,0 4,0In the first place, and starting out with the comparative results of Table 2.1 it may beobserved that at descriptive level, there are differences in the averages between thework-addiction and WFC levels.In the averages comparison (Table 2.1), it may be pointed out that as the work-addictionmeasure increases, an ascending difference in the WFC averages occurs. Among thethree groups of work addicts, the greatest difference between averages occurs in thegroup with high addiction level (3,267).2.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of WFC, according to Workaholisms level. ANOVA WHI Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between (Combined) 17,480 2 8,740 26,039 ,000 Groups Linear Term Unweighted 17,186 1 17,186 51,204 ,000 Weighted 15,415 1 15,415 45,928 ,000 Deviation 2,064 1 2,064 6,150 ,016 Within Groups 21,817 65 ,336 Total 39,296 67 14
  • 15. 2.3. Table of contrast post-hoc of WFCs Tukey, according to Workaholisms level. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: WHI Tukey HSD Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval (I) ADICCION (J) ADICCION (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1,0 2,0 -,2349 ,1680 ,348 -,638 ,168 3,0 -1,2794* ,1788 ,000 -1,708 -,851 2,0 1,0 ,2349 ,1680 ,348 -,168 ,638 3,0 -1,0444* ,2025 ,000 -1,530 -,559 3,0 1,0 1,2794* ,1788 ,000 ,851 1,708 2,0 1,0444* ,2025 ,000 ,559 1,530 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.In the second place, the Variance Analysis (ANOVA) detects statistically significantdifferences (p<0.05) between the level of work-addiction and WFC (Table 2.2). In orderto find out where these differences are among the groups according to the level of work-addiction, Tukey’s post hoc test was applied. This analysis revealed differencesbetween the groups of high and medium levels of work-addiction and WFC, as well asbetween the groups with high and low levels of work-addiction and WFC (Table 2.3).Therefore, Hypothesis 2 has been confirmed.To analyze if there are statistically significant differences between the work-addiction and family-work conflict (FWC), one way ANOVA tests were applied inthis study.3.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between addiction to the work and FWC Descriptives HWI 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1,0 35 1,671 ,5247 ,0887 1,491 1,852 1,0 2,8 2,0 18 1,972 ,6599 ,1555 1,644 2,300 1,0 3,2 3,0 15 2,322 ,8079 ,2086 1,875 2,770 1,3 4,0 Total 68 1,895 ,6746 ,0818 1,731 2,058 1,0 4,0First of all and starting out with the comparative results of Table 3.1 it may be observedthat at a descriptive level, there are differences in the averages between the work-addiction and WFCIn the comparison between averages, it may be pointed out that as the work-addictionmeasure increases, an ascending difference in the WFC averages occurs. Among the 15
  • 16. three groups of work addicts, the greatest difference between averages occurs in thegroup with high addiction level (2,322).3.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of FWC, according to Workaholisms level. ANOVA HWI Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between (Combined) 4,595 2 2,297 5,765 ,005 Groups Linear Term Unweighted 4,447 1 4,447 11,161 ,001 Weighted 4,587 1 4,587 11,512 ,001 Deviation ,008 1 ,008 ,019 ,890 Within Groups 25,900 65 ,398 Total 30,495 673.3. Table of contrast post-hoc of FWCs Tukey, according to Workaholisms level. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: HWI Tukey HSD Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval (I) ADICCION (J) ADICCION (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1,0 2,0 -,3008 ,1831 ,235 -,740 ,138 3,0 -,6508* ,1948 ,004 -1,118 -,184 2,0 1,0 ,3008 ,1831 ,235 -,138 ,740 3,0 -,3500 ,2207 ,259 -,879 ,179 3,0 1,0 ,6508* ,1948 ,004 ,184 1,118 2,0 ,3500 ,2207 ,259 -,179 ,879 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.In the second place, the Variance Analysis (ANOVA) detects statistically significantdifferences (p<0.05) between the level of work-addiction and FWC (Table 3.2). In orderto find out where these differences are among the groups according to the level of work-addiction, Tukey’s post hoc test was applied.This analysis revealed differences between the group of non addicts to the work andthe group with a high level of addiction to the work, (table 3.3).Therefore, Hypothesis 3 has been confirmed.Finally, in order to analyze if there are statistically significant differences betweenthe measures of work-addiction and organizational commitment, one way ANOVAtests were applied in this study. 16
  • 17. 4.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between addiction to the work andcommitment. Descriptives VD - COMPROMISO 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1,0 35 3,450 ,9545 ,1613 3,122 3,778 1,0 5,0 2,0 18 3,389 ,9710 ,2289 2,906 3,872 1,8 5,0 3,0 15 3,200 ,7571 ,1955 2,781 3,619 2,3 4,8 Total 68 3,379 ,9117 ,1106 3,158 3,599 1,0 5,0In the comparative results of Table 4.1 it may be seen at a descriptive level that thereare not big differences in averages between the work addiction and organizationalcommitment. Nevertheless, in the comparison of averages, it is possible to emphasizethat in the measure that work-addiction increases, the averages of commitment go down.4.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of commitment, according toWorkaholisms level. ANOVA VD - COMPROMISO Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between (Combined) ,659 2 ,329 ,389 ,679 Groups Linear Term Unweighted ,656 1 ,656 ,775 ,382 Weighted ,607 1 ,607 ,717 ,400 Deviation ,051 1 ,051 ,061 ,806 Within Groups 55,028 65 ,847 Total 55,687 674.3. Table of contrast post-hoc of Tukey of commitment, according to Workaholismslevel. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: VD - COMPROMISO Tukey HSD Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval (I) ADICCION (J) ADICCION (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1,0 2,0 ,0611 ,2669 ,972 -,579 ,701 3,0 ,2500 ,2839 ,654 -,431 ,931 2,0 1,0 -,0611 ,2669 ,972 -,701 ,579 3,0 ,1889 ,3217 ,827 -,583 ,960 3,0 1,0 -,2500 ,2839 ,654 -,931 ,431 2,0 -,1889 ,3217 ,827 -,960 ,583Secondly, the Variance Analysis (ANOVA) does not detect statistically significantdifferences (p<0.05) between the level of work-addiction and organizationalcommitment (Table 4.2). Tukey’s post hoc test confirms the non-significance ofdifferences (p<0,05) (Table 4.3). 17
  • 18. In this way, Hypothesis 4 is not confirmed.Subsequently, and as a supplement to the described analysis, ANOVA tests were usedto analyze possible differences among some demographical characteristics, both withWFC and FWC. Specifically, analysis was applied to find out if the existence andnumber of children and the type of hourly work schedule would have a significantinfluence both on WFC and FWC.In the case of the relationship between the existence and number of children and WFCand FWC, even though average differences were found, the post-hoc Tukey’s test(p<0,05) indicate that neither of these differences is significant (See Tables 5.1 and 5.2)5.1 Post Hoc Test WFC 5.2 Post Hoc Test FWC Multiple Comparisons Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: WHI Dependent Variable: VD HWI Tukey HSD Tukey HSD Mean 95% Confidence Interval Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval Difference (I) VI HIJOS (J) VI HIJOS (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (I) VI HIJOS (J) VI HIJOS (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -,5190 ,4254 ,923 -1,855 ,817 1 2 -,6096 ,3526 ,669 -1,717 ,498 3 ,1956 ,2930 ,998 -,724 1,116 3 ,3070 ,2428 ,908 -,455 1,070 4 -,0468 ,5748 1,000 -1,852 1,758 4 -,2763 ,4764 ,999 -1,772 1,220 5 -,0329 ,2624 1,000 -,857 ,791 5 -,4117 ,2175 ,561 -1,095 ,271 6 -,3060 ,3621 ,990 -1,443 ,831 6 -,0819 ,3001 1,000 -1,024 ,861 7 -,3166 ,3419 ,982 -1,390 ,757 7 -,1216 ,2834 1,000 -1,011 ,768 8 ,5088 ,4804 ,963 -1,000 2,017 8 ,5292 ,3982 ,884 -,721 1,780 2 1 ,5190 ,4254 ,923 -,817 1,855 2 1 ,6096 ,3526 ,669 -,498 1,717 3 ,7146 ,4515 ,758 -,703 2,132 3 ,9167 ,3742 ,237 -,258 2,092 4 ,4722 ,6696 ,997 -1,631 2,575 4 ,3333 ,5550 ,999 -1,410 2,076 5 ,4861 ,4323 ,949 -,871 1,844 5 ,1979 ,3583 ,999 -,927 1,323 6 ,2130 ,4991 1,000 -1,354 1,780 6 ,5278 ,4137 ,904 -,771 1,827 7 ,2024 ,4847 1,000 -1,320 1,724 7 ,4881 ,4017 ,924 -,773 1,750 8 1,0278 ,5906 ,661 -,827 2,882 8 1,1389 ,4895 ,297 -,398 2,676 3 1 -,1956 ,2930 ,998 -1,116 ,724 3 1 -,3070 ,2428 ,908 -1,070 ,455 2 -,7146 ,4515 ,758 -2,132 ,703 2 -,9167 ,3742 ,237 -2,092 ,258 4 -,2424 ,5944 1,000 -2,109 1,624 4 -,5833 ,4927 ,933 -2,130 ,964 5 -,2285 ,3029 ,995 -1,180 ,723 5 -,7188 ,2510 ,099 -1,507 ,070 6 -,5017 ,3924 ,903 -1,734 ,731 6 -,3889 ,3253 ,930 -1,410 ,633 7 -,5123 ,3739 ,867 -1,686 ,662 7 -,4286 ,3099 ,861 -1,402 ,544 8 ,3131 ,5036 ,998 -1,268 1,895 8 ,2222 ,4174 ,999 -1,089 1,533 4 1 ,0468 ,5748 1,000 -1,758 1,852 4 1 ,2763 ,4764 ,999 -1,220 1,772 2 -,4722 ,6696 ,997 -2,575 1,631 2 -,3333 ,5550 ,999 -2,076 1,410 3 ,2424 ,5944 1,000 -1,624 2,109 3 ,5833 ,4927 ,933 -,964 2,130 5 ,0139 ,5799 1,000 -1,807 1,835 5 -,1354 ,4807 1,000 -1,645 1,374 6 -,2593 ,6314 1,000 -2,242 1,723 6 ,1944 ,5233 1,000 -1,449 1,838 7 -,2698 ,6200 1,000 -2,217 1,677 7 ,1548 ,5138 1,000 -1,459 1,768 8 ,5556 ,7059 ,993 -1,661 2,772 8 ,8056 ,5850 ,864 -1,032 2,643 5 1 ,0329 ,2624 1,000 -,791 ,857 5 1 ,4117 ,2175 ,561 -,271 1,095 2 -,4861 ,4323 ,949 -1,844 ,871 2 -,1979 ,3583 ,999 -1,323 ,927 3 ,2285 ,3029 ,995 -,723 1,180 3 ,7188 ,2510 ,099 -,070 1,507 4 -,0139 ,5799 1,000 -1,835 1,807 4 ,1354 ,4807 1,000 -1,374 1,645 6 -,2731 ,3702 ,995 -1,436 ,889 6 ,3299 ,3068 ,960 -,634 1,293 7 -,2837 ,3504 ,992 -1,384 ,817 7 ,2902 ,2904 ,973 -,622 1,202 8 ,5417 ,4865 ,951 -,986 2,069 8 ,9410 ,4032 ,293 -,325 2,207 6 1 ,3060 ,3621 ,990 -,831 1,443 6 1 ,0819 ,3001 1,000 -,861 1,024 2 -,2130 ,4991 1,000 -1,780 1,354 2 -,5278 ,4137 ,904 -1,827 ,771 3 ,5017 ,3924 ,903 -,731 1,734 3 ,3889 ,3253 ,930 -,633 1,410 4 ,2593 ,6314 1,000 -1,723 2,242 4 -,1944 ,5233 1,000 -1,838 1,449 5 ,2731 ,3702 ,995 -,889 1,436 5 -,3299 ,3068 ,960 -1,293 ,634 7 -,0106 ,4302 1,000 -1,362 1,340 7 -,0397 ,3566 1,000 -1,159 1,080 8 ,8148 ,5468 ,810 -,902 2,532 8 ,6111 ,4532 ,876 -,812 2,034 7 1 ,3166 ,3419 ,982 -,757 1,390 7 1 ,1216 ,2834 1,000 -,768 1,011 2 -,2024 ,4847 1,000 -1,724 1,320 2 -,4881 ,4017 ,924 -1,750 ,773 3 ,5123 ,3739 ,867 -,662 1,686 3 ,4286 ,3099 ,861 -,544 1,402 4 ,2698 ,6200 1,000 -1,677 2,217 4 -,1548 ,5138 1,000 -1,768 1,459 5 ,2837 ,3504 ,992 -,817 1,384 5 -,2902 ,2904 ,973 -1,202 ,622 6 ,0106 ,4302 1,000 -1,340 1,362 6 ,0397 ,3566 1,000 -1,080 1,159 8 ,8254 ,5336 ,779 -,850 2,501 8 ,6508 ,4423 ,819 -,738 2,040 8 1 -,5088 ,4804 ,963 -2,017 1,000 8 1 -,5292 ,3982 ,884 -1,780 ,721 2 -1,0278 ,5906 ,661 -2,882 ,827 2 -1,1389 ,4895 ,297 -2,676 ,398 3 -,3131 ,5036 ,998 -1,895 1,268 3 -,2222 ,4174 ,999 -1,533 1,089 4 -,5556 ,7059 ,993 -2,772 1,661 4 -,8056 ,5850 ,864 -2,643 1,032 5 -,5417 ,4865 ,951 -2,069 ,986 5 -,9410 ,4032 ,293 -2,207 ,325 6 -,8148 ,5468 ,810 -2,532 ,902 6 -,6111 ,4532 ,876 -2,034 ,812 7 -,8254 ,5336 ,779 -2,501 ,850 7 -,6508 ,4423 ,819 -2,040 ,738In the case of the relationship between the type of hourly schedule --flexible or rigid-with WFC, the Homogenous Sub-sets (Table 5.3) provides a value lower than 0,05, 18
  • 19. which is an indication that the means are not significantly different, hence this data isnot satisfactory for interpretation.5.3 Table of test of Homogeneity of Variances Test of Homogeneity of Variances VD WHI Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2,845 3 64 ,045In the case of the relationship between the type of hourly schedule --flexible or rigid-with FWC, even though no average differences were found, the Tukey post-hoc test(p<0,05) indicates that none of these differences is significant (See Table 5.4).5.4 Table of contrast post hoc of FWC Tukey according Schedule level. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: VD HWI Tukey HSD Mean (I) VI HORARIO (J) VI HORARIO Difference 95% Confidence Interval FLEX O RIG FLEX O RIG (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -,2358 ,2561 ,794 -,911 ,440 3 -,0201 ,1925 1,000 -,528 ,488 4 -,2618 ,3272 ,854 -1,125 ,601 2 1 ,2358 ,2561 ,794 -,440 ,911 3 ,2157 ,2742 ,860 -,507 ,939 4 -,0259 ,3810 1,000 -1,031 ,979 3 1 ,0201 ,1925 1,000 -,488 ,528 2 -,2157 ,2742 ,860 -,939 ,507 4 -,2417 ,3415 ,894 -1,143 ,659 4 1 ,2618 ,3272 ,854 -,601 1,125 2 ,0259 ,3810 1,000 -,979 1,031 3 ,2417 ,3415 ,894 -,659 1,143 19
  • 20. DISCUSSIONSome significant relations were found between the studied variables. In regard to therelationship between organizational commitment and WFC, the results may beinterpreted in the sense that the level of organizational commitment of people wouldhave an effect on WFC. Specifically, persons with a median organizationalcommitment would have a greater level of WFC than of persons with a high level oforganizational commitment. These results are consistent with the findings of otherinvestigations that suggest a positive relationship among high level of organizationalcommitment and low levels of WFC. When people have a high commitment with theorganization and they also can comply with the requirements associated to the work andfamily roles, a positive relationship would be in between this variables (Allen 2001,Gordon et all, 2007, Lennon et al, 1992, Harenstam et al 2001, Perrone, 1999).Therefore, if it is possible to favor a balance between the tasks proper to a job with theresponsibilities toward the family; for example, by means of proper organizationalpolicies, it could be possible to strengthen the affective link of the employees with theorganization, something that would be beneficial for the persons’ welfare, the familyenvironment and the organization as well.In regards to the relationship between work-addiction and WLB, the results suggest thatas work-addiction increases, the level of WFC would also increase, as well that forFWC. Regarding the direction of conflict, the results suggest a mutual relationshipbetween the WFC and FWC conflicts; this shows consistency with the previousinvestigations which have confirmed that if a work overload starts to interfere with theobligations toward the family, these obligations may start to interfere with the workobligations (Frone et al, 1992; Parsuraman, Greenhaus and Granrose, 1992).From the comparative results between the levels of WFC and FWC levels in relation tothe level of work-addiction, it should be pointed out that the general average for WFC(2,33) is greater than that for FWC (1,89) in their relationship with work-addiction; thissuggests that work-addiction may have a greater impact on WFC than on FWC. Thisresult is consistent with the previous investigations which indicate that an excessivededication of time that workaholics dedicate to work, interferes in a significant andnegative manner with the fulfillment of the necessities associated to the fulfillment ofthe family role; this situation would specially favor WFC (Russo et al, 2003).The results of the relationship between work-addiction and WFC would indicate theexistence of a significant relation; thus, in the measure that work-addiction increasesalso WFC increases. These results may be interpreted as if the people who declared tohave a high level of work-addiction showed a greater level of FWC than the personswho declared to have a median level of work-addiction, and also greater that the personswithout work-addiction. These results are consistent with previous studies that suggestthat work-addiction negatively affects WFC (Greenhaus et al, 1985; Robinson, 1999; 20
  • 21. Burke 2002). In this sense, if a person feels a constant and compulsive preoccupationfor his/her work, dedicating most of his/her time to it, it may be expected that he/herwould not be able to dedicate the necessary attention to comply with the properrequirements of his family role. This could generate conflict, given the workenvironment would negatively interfere with the family environment (Robinson, 1999).In reference to the relation between work-addiction and FWC, the descriptive resultssuggest that in the measure that work-addiction increases, FWC would also increase.The higher average for FWC occurs in the group with the highest addiction value(2,322), what may also suggest that persons with a high level of work-addiction wouldmanifest a greater level of FWC than persons with a moderate addiction or non-addictsto work. The results from the ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc tests may be interpretedin the sense that the persons who declared to have a high level of work-addiction wouldmanifest a higher FWC level than the persons without work-addiction; these results areconsistent with the previous studies that suggested that work-addiction negativelyaffects FWC (Greenhaus et al, 1985; Robinson, 1999; Burke 2002).In regard to the relationship between work-addiction and commitment, this investigationresults indicate that there are no significant differences between the averages of thesevariables; that is, the three groups of work-addicts: the group of non-addicts , themedian addiction group and the group of high work-addiction, do not significantlydiffer in their organizational commitment averages. These results differ from previousstudies of authors such as BURKE (2004) who have confirmed a significant relationshipbetween these variables. Notwithstanding, it can be considered as a relationship oftendencies, given that in the measure that work-addiction increases, the organizationalcommitment declines. To deepen and strengthen these results it would be interesting todevelop new research with broader and more homogenous samples, to be able to furtherstrengthen the analysis of the relation and direction of the links between these variables.Finally, in regard to the analyzed demographic data, no statistically significant relationshave been determined between the existence of children, nor the type of schedule –flexible or rigid- either with WFC or FWC. This results may be influenced both by thesmall size of the total sample, or by the number of individuals in each one of the groups. 21
  • 22. REFERENCESAdams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of, family socialsupport, and work-famjiy conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, (4),11-420.Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associatedwith work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 5, 278_/308.Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizationalperceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.Aziz, S., Zickar, M J. (2006). A Cluster Analysis Investigation of Workaholism as aSyndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol 11(1), Jan 2006. pp. 52-62.Barnett, R. C. (1994). Home-to-work spillover revisited: Astudy of full-time employedwomen in dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 647-656.Brett, J. M. y Stroh, L. K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: why do managers doit? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67-78.Burke, R. J. (1999). Workaholism in organizations. Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41,333-345.Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: concepts, results and futuredirections. International Journal of Management Reviews 2[1], 1-16.Burke, R.J. (2002), “Do workaholics prefer demanding, aggressive and results-orientedorganizational cultures?”, Career Development International, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 211-7.Burke, R. J. (2004) Workaholism among Norwegian Managers: Work and well-beingoutcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 17 No. 5, 2004 pp. 459-470.Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.Carlson D. S ; Frone M.R (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological involvementto a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family interference Journal of Businessand Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 4.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initialvalidation of a multi-dimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.Chapman, N. J., Ingersoll-Dayton, B. and Neal, M. b. (1994). Balancing the multipleroles of work and care giving for children, adults, and elders. In G. P. Keita and J. J. JrHurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: investigating gender, diversity, andfamily issues (pp. 283-300). Washington: American Psychological Association. 22
  • 23. Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American ManagementAssociation.Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts andpermeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal ofVocational Behavior, 50, 168–184.Edwards, J. E., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family.Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.Flowers C. P., Robinson, B. (2002). A Structural and Discriminant Analysis of theWork Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2002; 62; 517Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M .L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes ofwork–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77(1), 65–75.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M .L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict tohealth outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335.Frone, M. R., Yardley, J., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrativemodel of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.Fu, C.K. and Shaffer, M.A. (2001), “The tug of work and family: direct and indirectdomain specific determinants of work-family conflict”, Personnel Review, Vol. 30 No.5, pp. 502-22.Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, Toon W., Kompier, Michiel A. J., Dikkers, Josje S. E., VanHooff, Madelon L. M. and Kinnunen, Ulla M. (2005) Work-home interaction from awork psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire,the SWING, Work & Stress, 19:4, 319 – 339Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and familyroles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1997). Work and familyinfluences on departure from public accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,249-270.Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender:Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender andwork (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Guest, D. E (2002) Perspectives on the study of Work Life Balance. Social ScienceInformation 41(2) (pp 255-279).Goof, S. J., Mount, M. K and Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care,work/family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, 793-809.Gordon, J., Hamilton, E., Whelan K. (2007) The Relationship Among Work–FamilyConflict and Enhancement, Organizational Work–Family Culture, and Work Outcomesfor Older Working Women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 350-364. 23
  • 24. Harenstam, A., & Bejerot, E. (2001). Combining professional work with familyresponsibility—A burden or a blessing? Social Welfare, 10, 202-214.Harpaz, I. y Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations56, 291-319.Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quin, R., Snoek, J. D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Studiesin role conflict and ambiguity (pp. 571-648). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Killinger, B. (1993). La adicción al trabajo. Barcelona: Paidós.Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–lifesatisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–humanresources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the workfamily policy and productivitygap: A literature review. Community, Work, & Family, 2, 7–32.Kelly, R. and Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/family role strain among employed parents.Family Relations, 34, 367-374.Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging thecommon view of conflictridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Psychology,13, 231_/249.Korn, E. R., Pratt, G. J. y Lambrou, P. T. (1987). Hyper-perfomance: The A.I.M.Strategy for releasing your bussines potential. New York: John Wiley.Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1992).Women and mental health: The interaction ofjob and family conditions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 316-327.Luna, R (1986): Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario decompromiso organizacional de O Reilly y Chatman. Tesina de Licenciatura.Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D.Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of Work and OrganizationalPsychology (2nd ed., pp. 5_/33). Hove: Psychology Press.Mosier, S. K. (1983). Workahilics: an anaysis of their stress, success and priorities.University of Texas at Austin (Master Thesis).Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for careercounseling and research. Career Development Quarterly 14, 180-187.Oates, W. (1971) Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work adiction. NewYork: World Publishing.Oates, W. (1981). Excesive work. En Mule, S J. (Ed), Behavior in excess: anexamination of the volitional disorders (pp.264-272). New York: Free Press.O Driscoll, M. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles: Enhancement andconflict. In C. L. Cooper and I.T Robertson (Eds,), international review of Industrialand organizational psychology (vol. 11, pp. 279-306). Chichester: University ofManchester-Institute of Sciencie & Technology. 24
  • 25. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, socialsupport, and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior,13, 339-356.Parasuraman, S., Puohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work andfamily variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality20, 89-96.Perrone, K. M. (1999). Balancing life roles to achieve career happiness and lifesatisfaction. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 15, 49-58.Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Sugestions for researching thenegative outcomes of excesive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1, 70-84.Quijano S. D., Navarro. J. (2000). Un modelo integrado de Compromiso eIdentificación con la Organización: análisis del Cuestionario ASH-ICI. Revista dePsicología Social Aplicada Vol 10, n º2, 27-61.Rothausen, T.J. (1999). Family in organizational research: A review and comparison ofdefinitions and measures. Journal of Organizational Behivior, 20, 817-836.Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addition Risk Test: Development of a tentativemeasure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199-210.Robinson, B. E. (1996). The relationship between work addiction and familyfunctioning: clinical implications for marriage and family therapists. Journal of FamilyPsychotherapy 7, 13-39.Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the Desk: A guided book for workaholics, theirpartners and children and the clinicians who treat them. New York: University Press.Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical implications forpsychotherapy. Psychotherapy: theory, research, practice ,and training, 35 , 260-268.Robinson, B. E. y Post, P. (1995). Work adiction as a function of family or origin andits influence on current familly functioning. The Family Journal 3, 200-206.Russo. J. A., Waters. L. E (2006) Workaholic worker type differences in work-familyConflict: The moderating role of supervisor support and flexible work scheduling.Career Development International Vol. 11 No. 5, 2006 pp. 418-439Scharlach, A. E. (1995). Elder care and the changing workforce. In L. R. Murphy, J. J.Jr. Hurrel, S. L. Sauter and C. Keita (Eds), Job stress interventions (pp. 295-308).Washington: American Psychological Association.Scott, K. S., Moore., K. S. y Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning andconsequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287-314. 25
  • 26. Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of Occupational and HealthPaychology 75, 357-368.Stevens, D. P., Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E. and Kiger, G. (2007). Examining the“Neglected side of the work-family interface”: antecedents of positive and negativefamily-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 28 - 2(, 242-262)Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables onwork-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,80, 6–15.Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stresssors, mood spillover, andperceptions of work–family conflict in employed parents. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37, 837–868.Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. InS.Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and organization (pp. 1-32). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Inc.Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization.American Psychologist, 45, 240-251. 26

×