All Work and No Play? A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Correlates and Outcomes of Workaholism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical research on workaholism has been hampered by a lack of consensus regarding the definition and appropriate measurement of the construct. In the present study, we first review prior conceptualizations of workaholism in an effort to identify a definition of workaholism. Then, we conduct a meta-analysis of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism to clarify its nomological network. Results indicate that workaholism is related to achievement-oriented personality traits (i.e., perfectionism, Type A personality), but is generally unrelated to many other dispositional (e.g., conscientiousness, self-esteem, positive affect) and demographic (e.g., gender, parental status, marital status) variables. Findings are mixed regarding the relationship between workaholism and affectively laden variables, which speaks to the complex nature of workaholism. Results also show that workaholism is related to many negative outcomes, such as burnout, job stress, work–life conflict, and decreased physical and mental health. Overall, results provide solid evidence that workaholism is best conceptualized as an addiction to work that leads to many negative individual, interpersonal, and organizational outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it