Andreassen Cecilie Schou, Griffiths Mark D, Sinha Rajita, Hetland Jørn, Pallesen Ståle
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Centre of Competence, Bergen Clinics Foundation, Bergen, Norway.
PLoS One. 2016 May 18;11(5):e0152978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152978. eCollection 2016.
Despite the many number of studies examining workaholism, large-scale studies have been lacking. The present study utilized an open web-based cross-sectional survey assessing symptoms of psychiatric disorders and workaholism among 16,426 workers (Mage = 37.3 years, SD = 11.4, range = 16-75 years). Participants were administered the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, the Obsession-Compulsive Inventory-Revised, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Bergen Work Addiction Scale, along with additional questions examining demographic and work-related variables. Correlations between workaholism and all psychiatric disorder symptoms were positive and significant. Workaholism comprised the dependent variable in a three-step linear multiple hierarchical regression analysis. Basic demographics (age, gender, relationship status, and education) explained 1.2% of the variance in workaholism, whereas work demographics (work status, position, sector, and annual income) explained an additional 5.4% of the variance. Age (inversely) and managerial positions (positively) were of most importance. The psychiatric symptoms (ADHD, OCD, anxiety, and depression) explained 17.0% of the variance. ADHD and anxiety contributed considerably. The prevalence rate of workaholism status was 7.8% of the present sample. In an adjusted logistic regression analysis, all psychiatric symptoms were positively associated with being a workaholic. The independent variables explained between 6.1% and 14.4% in total of the variance in workaholism cases. Although most effect sizes were relatively small, the study's findings expand our understanding of possible psychiatric predictors of workaholism, and particularly shed new insight into the reality of adult ADHD in work life. The study's implications, strengths, and shortcomings are also discussed.
尽管有许多关于工作狂的研究，但大规模研究一直缺乏。本研究采用了基于网络的开放式横断面调查，评估了16426名工人（年龄中位数=37.3岁，标准差=11.4，年龄范围=16 - 75岁）的精神障碍症状和工作狂情况。参与者接受了成人注意力缺陷多动障碍自评量表、修订版强迫观念及强迫行为量表、医院焦虑抑郁量表和卑尔根工作成瘾量表，以及其他有关人口统计学和工作相关变量的问题。工作狂与所有精神障碍症状之间的相关性呈正向且显著。在三步线性多元层次回归分析中，工作狂作为因变量。基本人口统计学特征（年龄、性别、恋爱状况和教育程度）解释了工作狂变异的1.2%，而工作人口统计学特征（工作状态、职位、部门和年收入）又额外解释了5.4%的变异。年龄（呈负相关）和管理职位（呈正相关）最为重要。精神症状（注意力缺陷多动障碍、强迫症、焦虑和抑郁）解释了17.0%的变异。注意力缺陷多动障碍和焦虑的贡献相当大。工作狂状态的患病率在本样本中为7.8%。在调整后的逻辑回归分析中，所有精神症状均与成为工作狂呈正相关。自变量总共解释了工作狂病例中6.1%至14.4%的变异。尽管大多数效应量相对较小，但该研究结果扩展了我们对工作狂可能的精神预测因素的理解，特别是为工作生活中成人注意力缺陷多动障碍的现实提供了新的见解。还讨论了该研究的意义、优点和缺点。
