Maladaptive Rumination Mediates the Relationship between Self-Esteem, Perfectionism, and Work Addiction: A Largescale Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Empirical evidence suggests that low self-esteem and high perfectionism are significant personality correlates of work addiction, but the mechanisms underlying these relationships are still unclear. Consequently, exploring cognitive mechanisms will help to better understand work addiction. For instance, rumination is one of the under-researched topics in work addiction, although it may explain specific thinking processes of work-addicted individuals. The purpose of the study was to test the mediating role of maladaptive rumination (i.e., brooding) in the relationship between personality and addiction. Methods: In a largescale cross-sectional, unrepresentative, online study, 4340 adults with a current job participated. The following psychometric instruments were used: Work Addiction Risk Test Revised, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and Ruminative Response Scale. Results: It was found that self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and self-esteem had both direct and indirect relationships with work addiction via the mediating effect of maladaptive rumination. The two paths involving brooding explained 44% of the direct relationship. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that brooding type of rumination as a putatively maladaptive strategy explains why individuals characterized by low self-esteem and high perfectionism may have a higher risk of work addiction. The results suggest that cognitive-affective mechanisms in work addiction are similar to those found in other addictive disorders.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".