Master Thesis

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 Barcelona

HOME 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

ABSTRACT

The 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 work
addiction and finally the study analyzes the relation between the organizational
commitment and work addiction in a sample of 68 Chilean workers of the Services
Sector. In order to analyze the relation between the variables, questionnaires were
applied to evaluate each one of the variables. Later on, the correlation between
variables was analyzed, by means of differences of averages, applying the ANOVA
statistical tool. Finally to obtain the magnitude (positive or negative) and direction
of these relations, the Tukey post-hoc test was applied. We found significant
relations between the organizational commitment and WLB and between WLB with
organizational commitment; finally even though no significant relations were found
between the organizational commitment and work-addiction, we may speak about a
relationship of tendencies between these variables.

INTRODUCTION

In the current organizational environment, Work Life Balance (WLB), work-addiction
and commitment at work are topics that have been extensively developed; numerous
researchers 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; Harpaz
and Snir, 2003; Spence and Robbins, 1992). Notwithstanding the preceding, studies
that include the three concepts joined together have not been found. In this research, we
intend to clarify such relations in regards to their probable dependence on WLB as main
element of the two variables: commitment and work-addiction, as well as the
relationships between these two.

Starting with the aspects of WLB, which in general terms establishes the balance
between life and work, what is of most interest to us about WLB is the conflict between
work and family and vice-versa. In the last decades, an increasing investigative interest
has grown about its impact on work, the roles that are played within the family (Kosek y
Oseki, 1998) and recent research has shown that this element constitutes a significant
force which influences the attitudes and behaviour at work of individuals (Rothausen,
1999; Byron, 2005). One of the most accepted definitions for this family-work conflict
analyzes the interference between these environments –understood as an inter-roles
conflict- that would take place due to the simultaneous occurrence of the two or more
sets of pressures, in such a way that the fulfilment of one of them makes the fulfilment
of the other more difficult (Kahn, Wolfe, Qhinn, Snoek and Rosenthal, 1964). In other
words, the conflict may occur when the needs associated to the fulfilment of work roles
and family roles are mutually incompatible in some sense (Byron, 2005; Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985). This interference may arise when the demands of work or when
excessive stress that one domain produces affects the other; for example, when the
increase 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

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 to
take care of their parents, elderly adults (Byron, 2005).

Moreover, participation in highly demanding jobs has become increasingly common. In
these, a kind of competition is generated in order to be able to conciliate the
requirements both of the work and the family roles, (Byron, 2005), where the fulfilment
of both roles in a responsive manner implies a high degree of commitment with each
one’s responsibilities. Later on, in an attempt to reach a balance between both, many
workers undergo a conflict (Galinsky, Bond, & Friedman, 1993; Lee & Duxbury). It is
in this relationship that where commitment appears as one of the variables to be
analyzed, given it has been studies as an element that may increase such conflict, at the
time 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 and
his behavior within the organization has unchained a broader interest in the study of this
variable (Quijano et al, 2000). This is so, given it is assumed that a positive attitude
towards the organization -reflected in a high level of commitments with it- is related to
the 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 has
been 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 a
requirement for economic success in the work environment (Azis et al 2006).

Within the conceptual level, even though there is no commonly accepted definition of
what work-addiction is, (Scott, Moore y Miceli, 1997) agreement exists in considering
Oates (1979) as the author who used for the first time the term work-addiction to refer
to a type of compulsive and uncontrolled behavior, that may become a risk for the
individual’s health, his/her family relations and his/her social functioning. Recent
investigations have confirmed that over-dedication to work; common in work-addict
persons 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 BALANCE
The traditional perspectives of WLB analysis have been developed mainly through five
descriptive models: segmentation, overflowing, compensation, instrumental and conflict
(Zedeck & Mosier 1990; Zedeck 1992; Guest 2002).

3

This research will assume the models of overflowing and conflict as its bases; given
these are the ones that have received more attention and study by researchers in the
explanations of the interrelation between family experiences and work given Byron
2005; and Williams & Alliger, 1994. Attention to this models was possible given due to
the empirical results of the investigations that allow to support the hypothesis –on one
hand- that work and family superimpose over each other, -an on the other- that
individual emotions, talents, skills and behaviors overflow mutually among both
domains (Kelly y Voydanoff, 1985).

In regard to the overflowing between work and family experiences, this may be positive
or negative. Positive overflowing is related to an increase of the persons’ welfare
through a work-family relation; whereas the negative overflowing is related with
conflict derived from that relation (Greenhaus & Parsuraman, 1999; Stevens, Minnotte,
Mannon & Kiger, 2007). In this context if the time and energy necessary for the
fulfillment of a role prevent the fulfillment of the other –precisely due to the restrictions
of 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 work
roles, is a type of conflict where the fulfillment of the requirements of each one
becomes incompatible, hence participation in one of these roles, makes more difficult
participating in the other (Thomas el al., 1995, Grenhaus y Beutell, 1985).

The two forms of conflict work-family or family-work come from the interference
between the different activities necessary to develop each one of the roles.

Among the family elements that may contribute to the generation of work-family
conflicts (from now on FWC) some authors mention elements that include the couple’s
requirements and taking care of others, such in the case of children (Kirchmeyer, 1992),
sick or handicapped adults (Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton & Neal, 1994) and care of
elderly adults (Scharlach, 1995). Members of double-income families, those from
families that have only one of the parents and families with minor children, have more
probability to experience conflict FWC (Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985).

Analyzing the elements of work that would influence both conflicts (WFC-FWC) one of
the most studied is expressed as excessive demands of time at work, incompatible
schedules and stress caused by the desire of people to fulfill their duties both at work
and at home (Eagle, Miles & Icengole, 1997)

In regard to the direction of the interference in the work-family conflict, it can be stated
that there is a mutual relation between the WFC and FWC conflict, upon the assumption
that 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

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 environments
appears as necessary in this investigation, given it is coherent with the approach of the
overflowing and conflict that we explained before. The interaction perspective is based
in Meijman & Mulder (1998) effort and recovery theory, this theory indicates that the
effort that the exposure to the work load needs is associated with short term psycho-
physiological reactions (for example: the heart beat acceleration, increase of hormonal
secretion and changes in humor); which would be adaptive and reversible at the
beginning (recovery after the ending of the work load), however it becomes a negative
reaction (psychosomatic symptoms, fatigue) if there is no possibility for the organism to
recovery in front of the work load. If a work post does not allow the person to regulate
the demands of the post, or at least strategically adjust his/her work, in such a way that
the persons has to make an over-effort to comply with it, it would generate a negative
consequence (stress-fatigue) that would produce a negative overflow on the other
person’s activities, at his home with his/her (Guerts et al. 2005).

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
In regard to the commitment variable, this study has taken the perspective adopted by
the ASH team (acronym of the initial letters of Human Team Audit in Spanish) of the
Department of Human Psychology of the University of Barcelona that has elaborated a
set of instruments to carry out this type of audits in organizations. The
conceptualization of the commitment variable and the instrument to measure it, are part
of 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 the
contributions of integrating proposals upon the organizational commitment as those of
Mayer & Allen and O¨Reilly & Chatman (Quijano et al 2000).

From this perspective, organizational commitment is understood as a psychological link
that the workers establish with the organization for different reasons; this proposal takes
into consideration the proposals posed by Luna (1986). This perspective considers a
single attitudinal nature of commitment that includes affects, cognition and also
behavioral predispositions (Quijano et al 2000).

Now, in regard to the dimensionality of commitment, in an analysis of the structure of
the concepts presented in the ASH model, evidence has been found of the single
dimensionality of the commitment concept wit a reliability index of (0.779) (Quijano S.
ENOP Presentation 2007, paper under preparation).

5

WORK LIFE BALANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
The work and family environments have different roles associated to them, and we will
analyze if the organizational commitment –understood as the affective link of the
individual 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 the
indicated 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, the
overload in work would be positively related to the commitment of time dedicated to
family, against the commitment dedicated to work (Frone et al., 1997, Parasuraman et
al., 1996). In this sense, if the overload on a role implies more dedication of time for
this 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 symptoms
such as stress, fatigue, irritability –among others- which create incompatibilities
between work and family, due to the evident difficulties to comply with the demands
required by those roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)

Then, if the overload in one role negatively affects the other role, it may be possible that
a negative relation would emerge between WFC and commitment. Results form a
meta-analysis of the relationship of WFC and organizational commitment, show that
individuals who experience negative conflicts between the work and family roles –in
other 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 the
perspective of interaction between work and family, Gourds (2005) found a negative
relation between home / work interference with organizational commitment (r.-13, p
.001), suggesting that the greater the interference between home and work is, workers
would feel a weaker organizational commitment.

On the other hand, there are also studies that put forward the benefits of organizational
commitment in the performance of professional and family roles. If persons could
combine in a good manner their family and labor roles, responding to the demands
associated to the performance of both roles, they experience a greater personal
satisfaction 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. For
example 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 have
a high level of involvement in their work and familiar roles, the latter reports them a

6

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 and
in 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-ADDICTION
Since 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 and
power in an attempt to obtain approval and success (Killinger, 1993). Also, empirical
approaches define work-addiction in terms of the hours worked, and consider that
addiction occurs when they add up or surpass fifty hours per week (Mosier, 1983). It
has been understood as an excessive involvement at work as well, demonstrated by
negligence in other areas of life, such as family, based upon internal motives to hold on
with 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 is
based on the presence of two dominant visions to study work-addiction. These are
Spence and Robbins vision and Robinson’s vision.

Spence & Robbins (1992) consider that the work-addict is a person who is highly
involved in his work, compelled to do it by internal pressures and with a low capacity to
enjoy it. In this definition three components stand out: dedication behavior, its
compulsive 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 the
authors. The consistency data of each one of the sub-scales show consistency greater
than 0,67 in a sample of 368 social workers.

7

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 different
patterns that are obtained with the three scales. This model has been an important
contribution to the description and differentiation of work-addicts typology.

The second vision, in this case that of Robinson’s defines work-addiction as an
excessive preoccupation about work that often implies a detriment in the worker’s
health, his/her intimate interpersonal relations and his/her participation in his/her
children’s care. (Robinson, 1999). This author indicates that work-addicts are
frequently perfectionist individuals who get their personal valuation from their work
(Robinson, 1999). In this definition the implications of work-addiction stand our over
the person’s health and the family system. In this research we will precisely deal with
the relations between work and family, this takes us to adopt Robinson’s definition in
this investigation.

Robinson has made work-addiction operative through the development of the Work
Addiction Risk Test (WART, Robinson, 1998b), this is an instrument that contains 25
items prepared starting with the habitual descriptions of work-addicts. The time-frame
reliability in a two week term, with 151 university students, was 0,83 and the
Crombach’s alpha consistency was 0,85. Later on, using a factorial analysis of each one
of 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’s
alpha values: a) Compulsive tendencies, ª 0,9 b) Inability to control work habits ª0,6
and c) A self-absorption with communication difficulties. ª0,68 (Flower & Robinson
2002).

In a study carried out by Robinson and Post (1995) using WART in a group of 107
workaholics grouped in a “Workaholics Anonymous” association, they found that the
high scores were associated to six of the seven familiar mal-functioning indexes.
Robinson would indicate that work-addicts frequently are perfectionist persons who
obtain their personal valuation from their work (Robinson, 1999).

WORK-ADDICTION AND WORK LIFE BALANCE
As previously mentioned, we will understand the work–family and family–work
conflicts (WFC-FWC), as situations where the pressures to fulfill one of the roles makes
the fulfilling of the other role incompatible, that means when the fulfillment of the work
roles and those of the family are incompatible among each other (Greenhaus et al,
1985).

8

Russo and Waters (2006) have confirmed that excessive dedication of time dedicated to
work by workaholics interferes in a significant and negative manner with the fulfillment
of the need of the family role, generating conflict between work and family.

The Robinson’s work-addiction model study explained that the dimension “over
preoccupation about work”, often implies a detriment in the work-addict’s health as
well as his/her intimate interpersonal relations and his/her participation in the care of the
family and children (Robinson, 1999).

Robinson (1999) considers that work-addiction is a symptom of a troubled family
system, 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 happens
with other psycho-social addictions, it would pass from generation to generation
through a series of family processes and dynamics. From this perspective, work-
addiction would be seen as a learned addictive response (Robinson, 1999). This
position is coincidental to that of Pietropinto (1986) who considers that the children of
work-addicts learn that paternal love is contingent with the achievements, results and
productivity in general. They would learn that work and its results are what justify life
and interpersonal relations; other values are conditioned to work and its results.
Robinson (1998a) has found a possible indirect correspondence between the addict
parents 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 the
activities out of it. There are also qualitative studies which suggest that organizational
culture implies high levels both of time and emotional commitment (Spence and
Robbins, 1992).

Taking into consideration the foregoing background, we will bring up the following
hypothesis:

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

WORK ADDICTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

The high level of commitment to their work tasks that people feel with a company may
be related to work-addiction. As we have reviewed previously work-addicts assign a
central value in their lives to their work tasks, this tales them to experience a
compulsive behavior of high work dedication (Robinson 1999). For work-addicts, the
value of work is superior to personal relations, those with their fellow workers, friends
and family. This obsession for work takes them to a very high dedication and to assume
more 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 commitment
with the organization and work-addiction has been confirmed.

Taking into consideration the proposed background, in this study the following
hypothesis will be brought up:

Hypothesis 4: work-addiction would be related with high levels of
commitment.

METHOD

Participants

Sixty-eight Chilean workers collaborated in this study. They come from different labor
sectors of the city of Santiago de CHILE. In regard to gender, the sample was made up
by 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 living
with a couple, 23,5% living with their parents, 13,2% living alone, and 2,9% responded
as “other”. 64,7% of participants worked in the services sector (hotel and catering
industry – services), 19,1% in the education area, 13,2% in the health area and 3% in
other areas. In regard to the type of work schedule, 48,6% had a fixed schedule and
41,4% had a flexible schedule for entering or going out of work.

Instruments

The socio-demographic characteristics of this study’s participants were evaluated by
means of a questionnaire specifically designed for this investigation.

10

In order to measure work-addiction, the Work Addiction Risk Test, WART (Robinson
2002) was used. It consists in a 25 item questionnaire elaborated from the habitual
descriptions of workaholics. The answers are written in a Likert format with a four
point interval, and grading has a rank between 57 and 66 that would indicate a median
presence and grading higher than 67 would indicate a clear presence of work-addiction.

Level of confidence or reliability: Previous studies applying WART, have examined its
reliability, 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, and
the 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 of
behavior and anxiety, showed that the work-addicts tended to have higher marks in the
behavior and anxiety Pattern A. Linley, Brady, O’Driscoll and Marsch (2002) consider
that the WART test mainly evaluates the elements that are proper to Pattern A of
behavior.

The Crombach’s alpha reliability indices of the Sub-scales measured with WART, are
for: 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 authors
Fernández-Montalvo and Echeburúa, (1998) was used.

In order to measure the Work Life Balance the Survey Work-home
Interaction*/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. The
answers are recorded in a Likert format with 4 interval points. The following
dimensions have been evaluated: Interference Between Work and Family (WFC) and
interference of Family over Work (FWC). The Crombach’s alpha reliability indices for
these 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 of
University of Barcelona. Out of 12 items in the questionnaire, 4 were used to measure
commitment as a single dimension concept. Answers are recorded in a Likert format
with five interval points. The reliability indices of the ASH.ICI instrument have shown
a reliability index of 0.78. The confirmatory factorial analysis applied on the
commitment model gives an adjustment index of 0.954. (Quijano et al. 2000). Thus, in
regard to commitments dimensionality, evidence has been found of the single
dimensionality of the commitment concept, with a reliability index of 0.799, in an
analysis of the ASH model concepts (Quijano S. ENOP Presentation, 2007; paper under
preparation).

11

All the applied questionnaires are shown in their original version in the Annexes
Chapter.

Procedure

The 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 the
research, and once completed, was sent to the investigation team collaborator in a
closed envelope.

Data analysis

To attain the proposed objectives, descriptive statistical analysis were carried out, using
the SPSS 14.0 for Windows. Comparisons of averages were established by means of
ANOVA, obtaining the correlation between the variables considered in the study. In
order to establish the average comparisons among work-addiction, WLB and
commitment, the results of each one of the questionnaires were coded, to give for each
variable, three groups that indicated the level of presence: low, medium or high of the
variable 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, averages
comparisons were carried out using ANOVA. After the application of ANOVA and
with the objective to be able to exactly determine where the significant differences
were, the ‘a posteriori contrast’ test (Tukey’s post-hoc) was applied to all the analyzed
relations.

RESULTS

The following are the results obtained through the application of questionnaires to
measure work-addiction, WLB and organizational commitment.

In the present study, one-way ANOVAs were applied to analyze if there were
significant differences between organizational commitment, and work-family
conflict (WFC).

1.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between organizational commitment
and WFC

12

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 4,0

In the comparative results of Table 1.1 it may be seen at a descriptive level that there
are differences in the averages between the level of commitment and WFC. It can be
pointed out that the out of the three commitment groups, the larger difference in average
occurs between the group that has the higher commitment level (2,074) and the group
that 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 67

1.3. 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

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 with
precision where exactly the significant differences are; that is, in order to determine
where among which groups –according to their level of commitment- these differences
lie, the ‘a posteriori contrast’ test (Tukey’s post-hoc) was applied. As shown in Table
1.3, this analysis revealed discrepancies between the groups with high and medium
levels 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 this
study.

2.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between addiction to the work and WFC

Descriptives

WHI
Mean
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 4,0

In the first place, and starting out with the comparative results of Table 2.1 it may be
observed that at descriptive level, there are differences in the averages between the
work-addiction and WFC levels.

In the averages comparison (Table 2.1), it may be pointed out that as the work-addiction
measure increases, an ascending difference in the WFC averages occurs. Among the
three groups of work addicts, the greatest difference between averages occurs in the
group with high addiction level (3,267).
2.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of WFC, according to Workaholism's level.

ANOVA

WHI
Sum of
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
Total 39,296 67

14

2.3. Table of contrast post-hoc of WFC's Tukey, according to Workaholism's level.


Tukey HSD

Mean
(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

In the second place, the Variance Analysis (ANOVA) detects statistically significant
differences (p<0.05) between the level of work-addiction and WFC (Table 2.2). In order
to 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 groups of high and medium levels of work-addiction and WFC, as well as
between 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 in
this study.

3.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between addiction to the work and FWC

Descriptives

HWI
Mean
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 4,0

First of all and starting out with the comparative results of Table 3.1 it may be observed
that at a descriptive level, there are differences in the averages between the work-
addiction and WFC
In the comparison between averages, it may be pointed out that as the work-addiction
measure increases, an ascending difference in the WFC averages occurs. Among the

15

three groups of work addicts, the greatest difference between averages occurs in the
group with high addiction level (2,322).
3.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of FWC, according to Workaholism's level.

ANOVA

HWI
Sum of
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
Total 30,495 67

3.3. Table of contrast post-hoc of FWC's Tukey, according to Workaholism's level.


Dependent Variable: HWI
Tukey HSD

Mean
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

In the second place, the Variance Analysis (ANOVA) detects statistically significant
differences (p<0.05) between the level of work-addiction and FWC (Table 3.2). In order
to 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 and
the 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 between
the measures of work-addiction and organizational commitment, one way ANOVA
tests were applied in this study.

16

4.1. Comparative multiple table of averages between addiction to the work and
commitment.

Descriptives

VD - COMPROMISO
Mean
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 5,0

In the comparative results of Table 4.1 it may be seen at a descriptive level that there
are not big differences in averages between the work addiction and organizational
commitment. Nevertheless, in the comparison of averages, it is possible to emphasize
that in the measure that work-addiction increases, the averages of commitment go down.
4.2. Table of analysis of variance (ANOVA), of commitment, according to
Workaholism's level.

ANOVA

VD - COMPROMISO
Sum of
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
Total 55,687 67

4.3. Table of contrast post-hoc of Tukey of commitment, according to Workaholism's
level.


Dependent Variable: VD - COMPROMISO
Tukey HSD

Mean
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 ,583

Secondly, the Variance Analysis (ANOVA) does not detect statistically significant
differences (p<0.05) between the level of work-addiction and organizational
commitment (Table 4.2). Tukey’s post hoc test confirms the non-significance of
differences (p<0,05) (Table 4.3).

17

In this way, Hypothesis 4 is not confirmed.

Subsequently, and as a supplement to the described analysis, ANOVA tests were used
to analyze possible differences among some demographical characteristics, both with
WFC and FWC. Specifically, analysis was applied to find out if the existence and
number of children and the type of hourly work schedule would have a significant
influence both on WFC and FWC.
In the case of the relationship between the existence and number of children and WFC
and 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
Dependent Variable: VD HWI
Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD

Mean
95% Confidence Interval Mean
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 ,738

In 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

which is an indication that the means are not significantly different, hence this data is
not 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 ,045

In 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.


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

DISCUSSION

Some significant relations were found between the studied variables. In regard to the
relationship between organizational commitment and WFC, the results may be
interpreted in the sense that the level of organizational commitment of people would
have an effect on WFC. Specifically, persons with a median organizational
commitment would have a greater level of WFC than of persons with a high level of
organizational commitment. These results are consistent with the findings of other
investigations that suggest a positive relationship among high level of organizational
commitment and low levels of WFC. When people have a high commitment with the
organization and they also can comply with the requirements associated to the work and
family 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 the
responsibilities toward the family; for example, by means of proper organizational
policies, it could be possible to strengthen the affective link of the employees with the
organization, something that would be beneficial for the persons’ welfare, the family
environment and the organization as well.

In regards to the relationship between work-addiction and WLB, the results suggest that
as work-addiction increases, the level of WFC would also increase, as well that for
FWC. Regarding the direction of conflict, the results suggest a mutual relationship
between the WFC and FWC conflicts; this shows consistency with the previous
investigations which have confirmed that if a work overload starts to interfere with the
obligations toward the family, these obligations may start to interfere with the work
obligations (Frone et al, 1992; Parsuraman, Greenhaus and Granrose, 1992).

From the comparative results between the levels of WFC and FWC levels in relation to
the 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; this
suggests that work-addiction may have a greater impact on WFC than on FWC. This
result is consistent with the previous investigations which indicate that an excessive
dedication of time that workaholics dedicate to work, interferes in a significant and
negative manner with the fulfillment of the necessities associated to the fulfillment of
the family role; this situation would specially favor WFC (Russo et al, 2003).

The results of the relationship between work-addiction and WFC would indicate the
existence of a significant relation; thus, in the measure that work-addiction increases
also WFC increases. These results may be interpreted as if the people who declared to
have a high level of work-addiction showed a greater level of FWC than the persons
who declared to have a median level of work-addiction, and also greater that the persons
without work-addiction. These results are consistent with previous studies that suggest
that work-addiction negatively affects WFC (Greenhaus et al, 1985; Robinson, 1999;

20

Burke 2002). In this sense, if a person feels a constant and compulsive preoccupation
for his/her work, dedicating most of his/her time to it, it may be expected that he/her
would not be able to dedicate the necessary attention to comply with the proper
requirements of his family role. This could generate conflict, given the work
environment would negatively interfere with the family environment (Robinson, 1999).

In reference to the relation between work-addiction and FWC, the descriptive results
suggest 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 would
manifest a greater level of FWC than persons with a moderate addiction or non-addicts
to work. The results from the ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc tests may be interpreted
in the sense that the persons who declared to have a high level of work-addiction would
manifest a higher FWC level than the persons without work-addiction; these results are
consistent with the previous studies that suggested that work-addiction negatively
affects FWC (Greenhaus et al, 1985; Robinson, 1999; Burke 2002).

In regard to the relationship between work-addiction and commitment, this investigation
results indicate that there are no significant differences between the averages of these
variables; that is, the three groups of work-addicts: the group of non-addicts , the
median addiction group and the group of high work-addiction, do not significantly
differ in their organizational commitment averages. These results differ from previous
studies of authors such as BURKE (2004) who have confirmed a significant relationship
between these variables. Notwithstanding, it can be considered as a relationship of
tendencies, given that in the measure that work-addiction increases, the organizational
commitment declines. To deepen and strengthen these results it would be interesting to
develop new research with broader and more homogenous samples, to be able to further
strengthen the analysis of the relation and direction of the links between these variables.

Finally, in regard to the analyzed demographic data, no statistically significant relations
have 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 the
small size of the total sample, or by the number of individuals in each one of the groups.

21

REFERENCES

Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of, family social
support, and work-famjiy conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, (4),11-420.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated
with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278_/308.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational
perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Aziz, S., Zickar, M J. (2006). A Cluster Analysis Investigation of Workaholism as a
Syndrome. 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 employed
women 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 do
it? 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 future
directions. International Journal of Management Reviews 2[1], 1-16.
Burke, R.J. (2002), “Do workaholics prefer demanding, aggressive and results-oriented
organizational cultures?”, Career Development International, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 211-7.
Burke, R. J. (2004) Workaholism among Norwegian Managers: Work and well-being
outcomes. 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 involvement
to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family interference Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 4.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial
validation of a multi-dimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Chapman, N. J., Ingersoll-Dayton, B. and Neal, M. b. (1994). Balancing the multiple
roles of work and care giving for children, adults, and elders. In G. P. Keita and J. J. Jr
Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: investigating gender, diversity, and
family issues (pp. 283-300). Washington: American Psychological Association.

22

Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American Management
Association.
Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and
permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of
Vocational 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 the
Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2002; 62; 517
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M .L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of
work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77(1), 65–75.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M .L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to
health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335.

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative
model 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 indirect
domain 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., Van
Hooff, Madelon L. M. and Kinnunen, Ulla M. (2005) 'Work-home interaction from a
work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire,
the SWING', Work & Stress, 19:4, 319 – 339
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1997). Work and family
influences 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 and
work (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guest, D. E (2002) Perspectives on the study of Work Life Balance. Social Science
Information 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–Family
Conflict and Enhancement, Organizational Work–Family Culture, and Work Outcomes
for Older Working Women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 350-364.

23

Harenstam, A., & Bejerot, E. (2001). Combining professional work with family
responsibility—A burden or a blessing? Social Welfare, 10, 202-214.
Harpaz, I. y Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations
56, 291-319.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quin, R., Snoek, J. D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Studies
in 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–life
satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human
resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the workfamily policy and productivity
gap: 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 the
common 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 of
job and family conditions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 316-327.
Luna, R (1986): Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario de
compromiso 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 Organizational
Psychology (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 career
counseling and research. Career Development Quarterly 14, 180-187.
Oates, W. (1971) Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work adiction. New
York: World Publishing.
Oates, W. (1981). Excesive work. En Mule, S J. (Ed), Behavior in excess: an
examination of the volitional disorders (pp.264-272). New York: Free Press.
O Driscoll, M. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles: Enhancement and
conflict. In C. L. Cooper and I.T Robertson (Eds,), international review of Industrial
and organizational psychology (vol. 11, pp. 279-306). Chichester: University of
Manchester-Institute of Sciencie & Technology.

24

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social
support, 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 and
family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.

Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality
20, 89-96.
Perrone, K. M. (1999). Balancing life roles to achieve career happiness and life
satisfaction. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 15, 49-58.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Sugestions for researching the
negative outcomes of excesive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1, 70-
84.
Quijano S. D., Navarro. J. (2000). Un modelo integrado de Compromiso e
Identificación con la Organización: análisis del Cuestionario ASH-ICI. Revista de
Psicología Social Aplicada Vol 10, n º2, 27-61.
Rothausen, T.J. (1999). Family in organizational research: A review and comparison of
definitions and measures. Journal of Organizational Behivior, 20, 817-836.
Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addition Risk Test: Development of a tentative
measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199-210.
Robinson, B. E. (1996). The relationship between work addiction and family
functioning: clinical implications for marriage and family therapists. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy 7, 13-39.

Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the Desk: A guided book for workaholics, their
partners and children and the clinicians who treat them. New York: University Press.
Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical implications for
psychotherapy. 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 and
its influence on current familly functioning. The Family Journal 3, 200-206.

Russo. J. A., Waters. L. E (2006) Workaholic worker type differences in work-family
Conflict: The moderating role of supervisor support and flexible work scheduling.
Career Development International Vol. 11 No. 5, 2006 pp. 418-439
Scharlach, 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 and
consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287-314.

25

Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of Occupational and Health
Paychology 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 negative
family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 28 - 2(, 242-262)
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on
work-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, and
perceptions of work–family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 837–868.
Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In
S.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

Master Thesis

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Master Thesis

Ähnlich wie Master Thesis (20)

Master Thesis