workaholism. family outcomes

8/13/2019 Workaholism. Family Outcomes

1/13

WORKAHOLISM AND FAMILYFUNCTIONING: A PROFILE OFFAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS,PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES, ANDRESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS

Bryan E. Robinson

ABSTRACT:This paper examines the relationship between workahol-ism and family functioning and the psychological outcomes of familymembers. A profile of the workaholic family is presented, along withan argument for family scientists and practitioners to pay more atten-tion to this neglected area of family life. Considerations for how toaddress the need in family research and practice also are presented.

KEY WORDS: work; workaholism; family functioning; family relationships.

Distinctions among various family groups have been studied in

the family literature over the years. Theoretical and research issues

specific to the unique qualities and needs of various family configura-

tions have been applied to alcoholic families (Wegscheider, 1980), celeb-

rity families (Mitchell & Cronson, 1987), Black families (Lewis & Loo-

ney, 1983), stepfamilies (Visher & Visher, 1978), gay and lesbian

families (Baptiste, 1987; Barret & Robinson, 2000), and most recently,

workaholic families (Robinson, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). The adult chil-

dren syndrome was launched in 1983 with the best-selling book,AdultChildren of Alcoholics(Woititz, 1983), which is credited with spurninga series of other books and research studies examining other legacies

of adult children such as adult children of divorce (Wallerstein, 1985)

and adult children of workaholics (Robinson, 2000a; Robinson & Kelley,

1998; Carroll & Robinson, 2000).

Bryan E. Robinson, PhD, is Professor, Department of Counseling, Special Educationand Child Development, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.

Contemporary Family Therapy 23(1), March 2001 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 123


2/13

124

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

Despite the fact that workaholism has been cited as the best-

dressed family problem of the twentieth century, the subject has been

downplayed or ignored in the family literature, presumably because of

cultural maxims that extol its positive aspects while failing to profile

the negative aspects of high-performance and workaholism on the fam-

ily system (Robinson & Chase, 2001). Instead of helping workaholics

deal with workaholism, well-meaning clinicians often view the condi-

tion as an insignificant factor in family dynamics (Robinson, 2000b).

This oversight is supported by the fact that workaholism has not been

accepted into the official psychological nomenclature (Pietropinto,1986).

The present paper examines the impact of workaholism on the

family system, profiling the often hidden issues that affect family mem-

bers. An argument is made for family researchers and family prac-

titioners to pay more attention to this neglected and essential area of

study and recommendations for how to address the subject are pre-

sented.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON WORKAHOLIC FAMILIES

The term workaholic appeared in the published literature more

than 30 years ago (Oates, 1968, 1971). Since that time, there have beenvarious definitions of workaholism but two predominant definitions

have withstood the rigors of scientific investigation and psychometric

utility. Spence and Robbins (1992) define the workaholic as someone

who is highly involved in their work, feels driven to work because of

an inner compulsion rather than by external demands, and experiences

low work enjoyment. Their scales identify three workaholic patterns:

workaholics, work enthusiasts, and enthusiastic workaholics. Robinson

(1999) operationalized workaholism through the development of the

Work Addiction Risk Test (WART), a psychometrically-sound instru-

ment used by clinicians and researchers to identify individuals who

meet the criteria for workaholism. A discriminant analysis of the WART

suggests that workaholism is a multi-dimensional construct character-

ized by (a) Compulsive Tendencies, (b)Inability to Control Work Habits,(c) Impaired Communication/Self-Absorption, (d) Inability to Delegate,

and (e) Impaired Self-Worth (Flowers & Robinson, 2001). Robinson

(1998a) defines workaholism as a compulsive need to workregardless

of external pressuresthat manifests itself through self-imposed de-

mands, an inability to regulate work habits, and an overindulgence in


3/13

125

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

work to the exclusion of most other life activities (p. 7). This definition

of workaholism guides the conceptual framework of this paper. (For a

detailed discussion of the psychometric properties of the WART, see

Robinson, 1998a.)

When workaholism has been studied, the focus has been mainly

on its implications for the workplace, work productivity, and career

counseling and development (e.g., Matthews & Halbrook, 1990;

Naughton, 1987; Porter, 1996, 1998). Still, even career and organiza-

tional theorists have devoted little attention to the concept of workahol-

ism, despite its having been identified as an increasingly importantfactor in the work careers of many individuals (Naughton, 1987; Porter,

1996).

In terms of career development, Weinberg and Mauksch (1991)

discovered that patterns of interaction to which people become accus-

tomed in their families of origin often play unacknowledged roles in

their lives and can contribute to unwanted pressures and job stresses.

Matthews and Halbrook (1990) suggested that adults from dysfunc-

tional families of origin seek out high-stress jobs where work addiction

is rampant because in their families of origin they develop a high

tolerance for stressful and chaotic conditions. Because the workplace is

often a replication of the family of origin, it is a setting where unresolved

issues are reenacted.

The first study to directly investigate the relationship betweenworkaholism and family functioning provided evidence suggesting that

work addiction can lead to brittle family relationships, contribute to

marital conflict, and create dysfunction within the family (Robinson &

Post, 1995, 1997). The investigators administered a battery of instru-

ments to 107 subjects from Workaholics Anonymous across the United

States and Canada. Workaholism (i.e., scores on the WART) was signifi-

cantly correlated with current family functioning (i.e., scores on the

Family Assessment Device). The higher the workaholism scores, the

higher the degree of perceived dysfunction in ones current family.

Greater workaholism was related to less effective problem solving,

lower communication, less clearly established family roles, fewer affec-

tive responses, less affective involvement, and lower general function-

ing in families established in adulthood. Based on the WART scores,three groups were established from the sample: Low, Medium, and

High-risk for workaholism. Individuals in the High-risk group were

more likely to rate their families as having problems in communication

or in the exchange of information among family members than those

in the Low- or Medium-risk categories. They were more likely to rate


4/13

126


their families as having less clearly defined family roles and believed

their families were less likely to have established behavior patterns

for handling repetitive family functions than those in the other groups.

They also said their families were less likely to appropriately express

feelings in response to various events that occurred in the family. High-

risk adults said their families were less likely to be interested in and

value each others activities and concerns. High-risk individuals also

were perceived to more likely have problems in the general functioning

and overall health and pathology of their families than individuals at

Low- or Medium-risk for workaholism.Although specific family members were not directly targeted in

this study, one could predict from its findings and from other empirical

research that both spouses and offspring of workaholics may be at risk

for certain psychological outcomes, not unlike those of family members

of alcoholics (e.g., Chase, Deming, & Wells, 1998; Kelly & Myers, 1996;

Robinson & Rhoden, 1998; Tweed & Ryff, 1991).Clinical reports suggest

that, because of structural and dynamic characteristics of the worka-

holic family, each family member can be negatively affected by worka-

holism and can develop a set of mental health problems of their own

(Robinson, 1998b). The structure of the workaholic family system is

such that spouses and children become extensions of work and career

and the workaholics ego, molding their lives around interests and

values of workaholics, thus inevitably leading to family conflict (Pie-tropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998b). An inverse relationship between mar-

ital satisfaction and obsessive working has been documented in the

research literature (Gabbard & Menninger, 1989; Matthews, Conger, &

Wickrama, 1996; Orbuch, House, Mero, & Webster, 1996). Although

this pattern has never been empirically studied among workaholic

couples, it has special relevance for workaholic spousal relationships.

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS INWORKAHOLIC FAMILIES

Little empirical research exists on the spouses of workaholics. In-

formation that is available mostly comes from magazine surveys (Her-bst, 1996; Weeks, 1995), and case study reports (Robinson, 1998a).

Clearly, these popular press articles are non-empirical, difficult to gen-

eralize, and fail to contribute to a solid body of academic research in

this area.

In the first empirical examination of spousal workaholism, a group


5/13

127

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

of 400 physicians was polled regarding their observations of workahol-

ics as marital spouses (Pietropinto, 1986). Results indicated that worka-

holics devote an inordinate amount of time to work as opposed to

marriage and they have higher than normal expectations for marital

satisfaction. They are more demanding of achievement in their children

than nonworkaholics and their typical approach to leisure time is to

fill it with work activities. The workaholics usual style in marital

disagreements is to avoid confrontation or use passive-aggressive ma-

neuvers such as silence and sulking. Physicians as a group generally

agreed that these combined factors wreak havoc on the family unit.Hundreds of anecdotal reports from self-professed workaholics and

their spouses suggest a pattern of broken marriages and brittle social

relationships (Robinson, 1998a).

Only one study has been executed in which spouses of workaholics

were directly assessed on their perspectives of living in an atmosphere

of workaholism (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2000). This study com-

pared a sample of spouses of workaholics and spouses of non-workahol-

ics on marital estrangement, positive feelings toward husband, and

locus of control. A random national sample of 326 participants drawn

from the membership list of the American Counseling Association was

surveyed. Spouses of workaholics reported significantly greater marital

estrangement and less positive affect towards husbands and higher

external locus of control than spouses of non-workaholics. Moreover,there was a statistically significant difference between reports of

spouses of workaholics and spouses of non-workaholics in the number

of hours their husbands worked (i.e., an average of 9.5 more hours per

week). These findings were the first empirical results to corroborate

clinical and case study reports. Other studies have suggested that

workaholics are more interested in mastery than in feelingsmastery

over emotions instead of the expression of themwhich makes them

feel safer and more in control. They tend to score higher on the Thinking

Scale of the Myers-Briggs Indicator, a psychological test of personality

type, than on the Feeling Scale (Swary, 1996).

The Japanese refer to the workaholic husband who extricates him-

self from thefamilythereby contributingto his feeling like an outsider

and his concomitant role as a marginal family memberas a seven-eleven husband: He tends to have a rather marginal family member-

ship, and receives only limited substantive validation for his familial

self from the family. When the family forms an internal alliance exclud-

ing the marginal father, he is likely to feel displaced and unwanted at

home, which in turn reinforces his wish to be back in a familiar working


6/13

128


environment (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994, p. 180). This marginal

participation in family life has a negative impact on workaholics during

retirement. Japanese wives use the derogatory term, nure-ochiba (a

wet fallen leaf) to refer to retired workaholic husbands who do not

know what to do with themselves when not working and who hang

around the house expecting their wives to be in charge of their spare

time (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994).

Many spouses describe life with a workaholic as a living nightmare

(Robinson, 1998a); for some it can lead to desperation and in rare cases

to violence, as evidenced from one report:

In February 1972, Earl D. Rhode, 28, a bright executive climb-ing the ladder of success, fell victim to a national aberrationworkaholism. He returned to his suburban home in Washing-ton, D.C. one evening after a long day at the office with abriefcase bulging with work. The executive secretary of theNixon Administrations Cost of Living Council rested on theliving room couch as his wife approached and then calmly puta bullet in his head. Then she killed her self. A newspaper storyquoted neighbors as saying she had been complaining about herhusbands seven-day workweek. (Walsh, 1987, p. 82)

Outwardly, workaholic families appear immune from the effectsof the hard-driving, compulsive behaviors. Workaholics mask their anx-

iety, depression, or fear of not being in control by resiliency, perfection-

ism, over-responsibility, or self-reliance to the point of having difficulty

asking for help (Robinson, 1998a). Case studies indicate that family

members often are reluctant to come forward for fear of being branded

as ingrates for the material rewards generated by the workaholic

lifestyle (Robinson, 2000b). Carroll (2001) suggests that this lack of

understanding can cause spouses of workaholics to question their own

perceptions and feelingsand to wonder if perhaps it is theywho havethe

problem. As they see friends and colleagues heap praise and financial

rewards on the workaholic, spouses suppress their private pain and

quietly believe something is wrong with them (Robinson & Chase,

2001). The themes of isolation, low self-regard, and vilification werereflected in a 10point profile developed from hundreds of case studies

of spouses of workaholics (Robinson, 1998a).

Over time family members build a pattern of responses to their

loved ones workaholism (Robinson, 1998b). Spouses, not unlike alco-

holic spouses, become consumed with trying to get workaholics to curb

their compulsive behaviors and spend more time in the relationship.


7/13

129

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

Spouses and children of workaholics report feeling lonely, unloved,

isolated, and emotionally and physically abandoned (Robinson, 1998a).

They may habitually complain or become cynical about the workaholics

abusive work habits. A common refrain is that even when workaholics

are physically present, they are emotionally unavailable and discon-

nected from the family. Spouses of workaholics may have single-hand-

edly raised the children and complain of having the major portion of

parenting responsibilities dumped on them. Filled with resentment of

this one-sided arrangement, they tend to react with anger and com-

plaining. Some workaholics then use the verbal complaints as justifica-tion for their physical and emotional aloofness. Thus, circularity often

occurs when workaholics assert, I wouldnt work so much if you

wouldnt nag me all the time, whereupon spouses retort, I wouldnt

bug you so much if you didnt work all the time. In the progressive

stages of their condition, workaholics do not tolerate their spouses

objections to their working. They either take an aggressive approach

of blowing up or a passive-aggressive approach of sneaking their stash.

Concealing their working is an effort to avoid criticisms and confronta-

tions with a spouse, much like an alcoholic hiding beer bottles. Worka-

holics hide memos or files in their suitcases, pretend to rest while a

spouse goes off to the grocery store, or feign going to the gym and

working out at the end of the day in order to sneak in an extra hour

or two at the office (Robinson, 1998a).

CLINICAL AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON CHILDRENOF WORKAHOLICS

Three decades ago, it was suggested that workaholism could nega-

tively affect the development of children, although little attention has

been paid to this issue since Oates (1971) identified four symptoms

from his conversations with a handful of children affected by parental

workaholism. Preoccupation was the most significant symptom cited

by children of workaholics whose parents always had something else

on their minds. The second symptom was hastetheir parents were

always rushing around. Irritability was pronounced as when parentswere so deeply immersed in their work that it made them cross and

cranky. Related to the fact that the children felt that the workaholic

parents took work too seriously and lacked humor, was the fourth

symptom identified by children. which was parental depression about

work. All four of these offsprings reports have been corroborated by

later empirical studies which confirm that workaholics exhibit greater


8/13

130


anxiety, anger, depression, and stress than non-workaholics and that

they perceive themselves as having more job stress, perfectionism, more

generalized anxiety, more health complaints, and unwillingness to dele-

gate job responsibilities to others than non-workaholics (Fogus, 1998;

Haymon, 1993; Spence & Robbins, 1992).

The clinical literature suggests that many children of workaholics

carry the same legacy as their workaholic parents: they become other-

directed and approval-seeking to meet adult expectations (Robinson,

1998a). This observation has been supported by the first two empirical

studies to empirically investigate adult children of workaholics whichreported that adult children of workaholics had greater external locus

of control (Robinson & Kelley, 1998) and were more extrinsically moti-

vated (Navarette, 1998) than comparison groups of adult children from

non-workaholic families. These studies also indicated that adult chil-

dren of workaholics, compared to adult children of non-workaholics,

suffer greater depression, higher anxiety, and greater obsessive-com-

pulsive tendencies (Navarette, 1998; Robinson & Kelley, 1998). The

findings in these two studies were replicated by a third study in South

Australia, where 125 adult children of workaholics and adult children

of non-workaholics were compared on anxiety and depression levels,

view of family relationships, and their own risk for workaholism

(Searcy, 2000). Results corroborated previous studies. Children of work-

aholic parents had significantly higher depression levels, rated theirfamilies as more dysfunctional, and were at higher risk for workaholism

themselves. Children of workaholic mothers, but not workaholic fa-

thers, also had higher levels of anxiety.

Moreover, a fourth study comparing adult children of workaholics

with adult children of alcoholics (Carroll & Robinson, 2000) indicated

that adult children of workaholics had higher scores on depression and

parentification than both adults from alcoholic homes and adults from

non-workaholic homes. Although the research on adult children of

workaholics is still embryonic, results of these studies suggest that

children are affected by parental work addiction in negative ways that

are mentally unhealthy and that might cause problems well into young

adulthood.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY PRACTITIONERS

It is hoped that the findings reported in this paper will alert family

practitioners and researchers to the unmet needs of workaholics and

their families. Both practitioners and researchers can unmask this


9/13

131

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

insidious problem that continues to masquerade as an innocuous, some-

times positive, family attribute. It is imperative that family experts

pay more attention to the subject of workaholism so that a better

working knowledge of the condition can be accrued. A number of actions

can be taken that will improve the quality of research, our understand-

ing of workaholic family functioning, and ultimately our ability to apply

this information in professional practice.

More Empirical Research on Workaholic Family Functioning

The attention given to the study of workaholism and family func-

tioning pales in comparison to the hundreds of investigations that exist

on alcoholism and other compulsive behaviors. After an exhaustive

search of the literature usingPsychological Abstracts, Sociological Ab-stracts, and the Guide to Periodical Literature, other investigatorsfound only a handful of articles containing the word Workaholism in

the title or abstract (Seybold & Salomone, 1994). They further claimed

that, Although many writers have contributed to the understanding

of work addiction, in most cases they have addressed this complex issue

in an incomplete and fragmentary manner (p. 4).

Researchers have made a compelling case for devoting more scien-

tific attention to the study of workaholism (Burke, 2000). An increase

in the sheer quantity of studies on work addiction is neededstudiesthat include the direct assessment of workaholics and their spouses

instead of polls of physicians (e.g., Pietropinto, 1986) or magazine read-

ers (e.g., Herbst, 1996). More empirical research is needed on the psy-

chological problems and adjustment of the spouses and children of

workaholics. Currently, only four studies exist on the perceptions of

the children (Carroll & Robinson, 2000; Navarette, 1998; Robinson &

Kelley, 1998). Moreover, we have clinical accounts on spouses of worka-

holics (Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998a), but only one study has ever

been performed assessing the attitudes, feelings, and psychological

adjustment of spouses of workaholics (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers,

2000).

More Sophisticated Research Methodology

The information we have on workaholics is based predominantly

on self-report data, namely self-administered questionnaires or face-

to-face interviews with convenience samples. These limited approaches,

although useful for building a knowledge base, have led to a need

for more sampling and methodological specificity. It is important that


10/13

132


future research studies are well-planned and include randomized, rep-

resentative samples.

A multi-method approach to data collection in which observational

techniques are used in conjunction with the traditional self-report and

interview techniques will yield more reliable data and lead to a better

understanding of workaholic family functioning. No study has ever

employed this approach in its investigation of workaholic families.

Moreover, it is essential that future research employs a systems-ori-

ented approach and assesses perceptions and behaviors of spouses and

children of workaholics. Other researchers have emphasized the impor-tance of collecting data from family, friends, and co-workers to provide

a more reliable indicator than the self-reports of workaholics (Porter,

1996).

In addition, maintaining an ecological focus is crucial as workahol-

ics are observed interacting in the family and organizational system,

not just the researchers laboratory. Family scientists need multivariate

designs with larger samples that will provide data on the interaction of

significant variables that impact workaholics and their entire families.

Longitudinal studies also are needed to follow workaholics over time

to assess the progression of the disorder in terms of psychological,

attitudinal, and behavioral changes, family relationships, and work

satisfaction and performance.

Initial Screening

As part of the initial assessment, practitioners can screen for the

presence of workaholism in thefamily, just as they would foralcoholism.

When adults present with evidence of depression and/or parentification,

it is important to consider the presence of workaholism in the family

of origin as a contributing factor. Moreover, it is important to identify

the structure of the workaholic family. Is there a tacit family contract

that permits work addiction? Is the spouse unwittingly enabling the

addiction? Are there unspoken expectations of children that place them

into parentified roles that could cause them long-term emotional prob-

lems? Bringing these unconscious factors into thelight canhelp families

restructure their behaviors.Once the family structure is ascertained, screening beyond the

surface of this pretty addiction can be made for potential anxiety and

depression among workaholics, their spouses, and children. Expecta-

tions of change in workaholics require that family members who have

built a pattern of reactions to their loved ones work addiction, be


11/13

133

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

prepared to change as well. Spouses may have gotten into the habit of

complaining or being cynical about the workaholics absence. Clinicians

who work with the workaholic couple must be prepared for resistance

on both sides. One parent who single-handedly raised the kids may

become resentful when suddenly her workaholic spouse decides to take

a more active role in parenting. Change in family structure can evoke

anger and hurtful feelings of where were you 10 years ago? and can

lead to turf battles.

Family members may be sending the workaholic mixed signals by

complaining about his or her absence and, as movement back intothe family system occurs, complaining about his or her attempts at

integration. Spouses need to be made aware of the double bind of

complaining about their partners overworking in one breath and mak-

ing unreasonable financial demands for material comforts in another.

In some cases they must be willing and prepared to sacrifice financial

advantages in return for less working and more presence and participa-

tion of workaholics in their families.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in treatment is helping

families negotiate boundaries around the amount of time they spend

working together and talking about work. They can be helped to learn

that work does not have to dominate their conversations but that they

can discuss work frustrations and successes as all healthy couples and

families do. Additional goals in terms of family dynamics are to workon effective family roles, greater affective responses, more affective

involvement, and higher general functioningall of which characterize

the workaholic family system (Robinson & Post, 1995).

REFERENCES

Baptiste, D. A. (1987). Psychotherapy with gay/lesbian couples and their childrenin stepfamilies: A challengefor marriage and family therapists.Journal of Homosexual-ity, 14, 223238.

Barret, R. L., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Gay fathers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Concepts, results and futureresearch directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 119.Carroll, J. J. (2001). Female spouses of compulsive high achievers: Consequences

and implications for counselors. In B. E. Robinson & N. D. Chase (Eds.),High-performingfamilies: Causes, consequences, and clinical solutions (pp.23 40). Washington, DC: Amer-ican Counseling Association.

Carroll, J. J., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification among adultsas related to paternal workaholism and alcoholism. The Family Journal, 8, 3341.


12/13

134


Chase, N.D., Deming, M. P., & Wells, M. C. (1998). Parentification, parental alcohol-ism, and academic status among young adults. American Journal of Family Therapy,26, 105114.

Flowers, C., & Robinson, B. E. (2001).A structural and discriminant analysis of theWork Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, in press.

Fogus, J. L. (1998). Relationships among flow, work addiction, and health. Unpub-lished masters thesis. Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee State University.

Gabbard, G. O., & Menninger, R. W. (1989). The psychology of postponement in themedical marriage. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261, 23782381.

Haymon, S. (1993). The relationship of work addiction and depression, anxiety, andanger in college males.(Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1992). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 53, 5401B.

Herbst, A. C. (1996). Married to the job. McCalls Magazine, November, 130134.

Ishiyama, F. I., & Kitayama, A. (1994). Overwork and career-centered self-validationamong the Japanese: Psychosocial issues and counselling implications. InternationalJournal for the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 167182.

Kelly, V. A., & Myers, J. E. (1996). Parental alcoholism and coping: A comparisonof female children of alcoholics with female children of nonalcoholics.Journal of Counsel-ing and Development, 74, 501504.

Lewis, J. M., & Looney, J. G. (1983). The long struggle: Well-functioning working-class Black families. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Matthews, B., & Halbrook, M. (1990). Adult children of alcoholics: Implications forcareer development. Journal of Career Development, 16, 261268.

Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1996). Work-family conflictand marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 6279.

Mitchell, G., & Cronson, H. (1987). The celebrity family: A clinical perspective.American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 235240.

Naughton,T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism andimplications forcareercounseling and research. Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180187.

Navarette, S. (1998).An empirical study of adult children of workaholics: Psychologi-

cal functioning and intergenerational transmission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Santa Barbara, CA: California Graduate Institute.

Oates, W. (1968). On being a workaholic: A serious jest. Pastoral Psychology, 19,1620.

Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World PublishingCompany.Orbuch, T. L., House, J. S., Mero, R. P., & Webster, P. S. (1996). Marital quality

over the life span. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 162171.Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse.Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality,

20, 8996.Porter, G. (1996). Organizationalimpact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching

the negative outcomes of excessive work.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1,7084.

Porter, G. (1998). Can you trust a workaholic? How work addiction erodes trustthroughout the organization. Journal of Contemporary Business Issues, 6, 4857.

Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, theirpartners and children, and the clinicians who treat them. NewYork:New York UniversityPress.

Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Spouses of workaholics: Implications for psychotherapy.Psychotherapy, 35, 260268.

Robinson, B. E. (1998c). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. AmericanJournal of Family Therapy, 26, 6373.

Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentativemeasure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199210.

Robinson, B.E. (2000a). Adult children of workaholics: Clinical and empirical re-search with implications for family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11,1526.


13/13

135

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

Robinson, B. E. (2000b). Chained to the desk: Work may be the great unexaminedtherapy issue of our time. Family Therapy Networker, 24 (July/August), 2637.

Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2000). Marital estrangement, positiveaffect, andlocusof control among spouses of workaholics andnon-workaholics: A nationalstudy. American Journal of Family Therapy, in press.

Robinson, B. E., & Chase, N. (2001).High-performing families: Causes, consequencesand clinical solutions. Washington, DC: American Counseling Association.

Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of workaholics: Self-concept,locus of control, anxiety, and depression. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26,223238.

Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Work addiction as a function of family of originand its influence on current family functioning. The Family Journal, 3, 200206.

Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1997). Risk of work addiction to family functioning.

Psychological Reports, 81, 9195.Robinson, B. E., & Rhoden, L. (1998). (2nd. Ed.). Working with children of alcoholics:

The practitioners handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Searcy, E. A. (2000).Adult children of workaholics: Anxiety, depression, family rela-

tionships, and risk for work addiction. Unpublished masters thesis. South Australia:University of South Australia.

Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review ofcauses and counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 49.

Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholics: Definition, measurement, andpreliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160178.

Swary, S. L. (1996). Myers-Briggs Type and workaholism. Atlanta, GA.Tweed, S. H., & Ryff, C. D. (1991). Adult children of alcoholics: Profiles of wellness

amid distress. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 133141.Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1978). Common problems of stepparents and their

spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 252262.Wallerstein, J. (1985). The overburdened child: Some long-term consequences of

divorce.Social Work, 30, 116123.

Walsh, E. (1987). Workaholism: No life for the leisurelorn. Parks and Recreation,8284.

Weeks, D. (1995). Cooling off your office affair. NorthWest Airlines World TravelerMagazine,5962.

Wegscheider, S. (1980). Another chance: Hope and health for the alcoholic family.Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Weinberg, R. B., & Mauksch, L. B. (1991). Examining family of origin influences inlife at work. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 233242.

Woititz, J. (1983).Adult children of alcoholics.Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Commu-nications.

workaholism. family outcomes

Documents