WORKAHOLISM AND FAMILY

FUNCTIONING: A PROFILE OF
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS,
PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES, AND
RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
Bryan E. Robinson

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the relationship between workahol-

ism and family functioning and the psychological outcomes of family
members. A profile of the workaholic family is presented, along with
an argument for family scientists and practitioners to pay more atten-
tion to this neglected area of family life. Considerations for how to
address 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, Adult
Children of Alcoholics (Woititz, 1983), which is credited with spurning
a 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 Education

and Child Development, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.
Contemporary Family Therapy 23(1), March 2001
 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 123
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 been
various 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 work—regardless
of external pressures—that manifests itself through self-imposed de-
mands, an inability to regulate work habits, and an overindulgence in
 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 important
factor 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 between
workaholism 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 one’s 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
126

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

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 other’s 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 workaholic’s 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 IN
WORKAHOLIC 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
 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 workaholic’s 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 feelings—mastery
over emotions instead of the expression of them—which 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 the family—thereby contributing to his feeling like an outsider
and his concomitant role as a marginal family member—as 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
128

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

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 aberration—
workaholism. He returned to his suburban home in Washing-
ton, D.C. one evening after a long day at the office with a
briefcase bulging with work. The executive secretary of the
Nixon Administration’s Cost of Living Council rested on the
living room couch as his wife approached and then calmly put
a bullet in his head. Then she killed her self. A newspaper story
quoted neighbors as saying she had been complaining about her
husband’s seven-day workweek. (Walsh, 1987, p. 82)

Outwardly, workaholic families appear immune from the effects

of 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 feelings and to wonder if perhaps it is they who have the
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 were
reflected in a 10–point 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 one’s 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.
 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 workaholic’s
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 wouldn’t work so much if you
wouldn’t nag me all the time,” whereupon spouses retort, “I wouldn’t
bug you so much if you didn’t work all the time.” In the progressive
stages of their condition, workaholics do not tolerate their spouse’s
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 CHILDREN

OF 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 haste—their parents were
always rushing around. Irritability was pronounced as when parents
were 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
130

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

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 which
reported 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 their
families 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
 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 using Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Ab-
stracts, and the Guide to Periodical Literature, other investigators
found 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 needed—studies
that 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
132

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

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 the family, just as they would for alcoholism.
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 the light can help 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 one’s work addiction, be
 133

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

prepared to change as well. Spouses may have gotten into the habit of
complaining or being cynical about the workaholic’s 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 into
the 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 partner’s 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 work
on effective family roles, greater affective responses, more affective
involvement, and higher general functioning—all of which characterize
the workaholic family system (Robinson & Post, 1995).

REFERENCES

Baptiste, D. A. (1987). Psychotherapy with gay/lesbian couples and their children

in “stepfamilies”: A challenge for marriage and family therapists. Journal of Homosexual-
ity, 14, 223–238.
Barret, R. L., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Gay fathers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Concepts, results and future
research directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 1–19.
Carroll, J. J. (2001). Female spouses of compulsive high achievers: Consequences
and implications for counselors. In B. E. Robinson & N. D. Chase (Eds.), High-performing
families: 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 adults
as related to paternal workaholism and alcoholism. The Family Journal, 8, 33–41.
134

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

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, 105–114.
Flowers, C., & Robinson, B. E. (2001). A structural and discriminant analysis of the
Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, in press.
Fogus, J. L. (1998). Relationships among flow, work addiction, and health. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis. Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee State University.
Gabbard, G. O., & Menninger, R. W. (1989). The psychology of postponement in the
medical marriage. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261, 2378–2381.
Haymon, S. (1993). The relationship of work addiction and depression, anxiety, and
anger in college males. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1992). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 53, 5401–B.
Herbst, A. C. (1996). Married to the job. McCall’s Magazine, November, 130–134.
Ishiyama, F. I., & Kitayama, A. (1994). Overwork and career-centered self-validation
among the Japanese: Psychosocial issues and counselling implications. International
Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 167–182.
Kelly, V. A., & Myers, J. E. (1996). Parental alcoholism and coping: A comparison
of female children of alcoholics with female children of nonalcoholics. Journal of Counsel-
ing and Development, 74, 501–504.
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 for
career development. Journal of Career Development, 16, 261–268.
Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1996). Work-family conflict
and marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 62–79.
Mitchell, G., & Cronson, H. (1987). The celebrity family: A clinical perspective.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 235–240.
Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career
counseling and research. Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180–187.
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,
16–20.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World Publishing Company.
Orbuch, T. L., House, J. S., Mero, R. P., & Webster, P. S. (1996). Marital quality
over the life span. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 162–171.
Pietropinto, A. (1986). The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality,
20, 89–96.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching
the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1,
70–84.
Porter, G. (1998). Can you trust a workaholic? How work addiction erodes trust
throughout the organization. Journal of Contemporary Business Issues, 6, 48–57.
Robinson, B. E. (1998a). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their
partners and children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University
Press.
Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Spouses of workaholics: Implications for psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy, 35, 260–268.
Robinson, B. E. (1998c). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 63–73.
Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative
measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199–210.
Robinson, B.E. (2000a). Adult children of workaholics: Clinical and empirical re-
search with implications for family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11,
15–26.
 135

BRYAN E. ROBINSON

Robinson, B. E. (2000b). Chained to the desk: Work may be the great unexamined
therapy issue of our time. Family Therapy Networker, 24 (July/August), 26–37.
Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2000). Marital estrangement, positive
affect, and locus of control among spouses of workaholics and non-workaholics: A national
study. American Journal of Family Therapy, in press.
Robinson, B. E., & Chase, N. (2001). High-performing families: Causes, consequences
and 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,
223–238.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Work addiction as a function of family of origin
and its influence on current family functioning. The Family Journal, 3, 200–206.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1997). Risk of work addiction to family functioning.
Psychological Reports, 81, 91–95.
Robinson, B. E., & Rhoden, L. (1998). (2nd. Ed.). Working with children of alcoholics:
The practitioner’s 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 master’s thesis. South Australia:
University of South Australia.
Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of
causes and counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 4–9.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholics: Definition, measurement, and
preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
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, 133–141.
Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1978). Common problems of stepparents and their
spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 252–262.
Wallerstein, J. (1985). The overburdened child: Some long-term consequences of
divorce. Social Work, 30, 116–123.
Walsh, E. (1987). Workaholism: No life for the leisurelorn. Parks and Recreation,
82–84.
Weeks, D. (1995). Cooling off your office affair. NorthWest Airlines World Traveler
Magazine, 59–62.
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 in
life at work. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 233–242.
Woititz, J. (1983). Adult children of alcoholics. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Commu-
nications.
Copyright of Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal is the property of Springer Science &
Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.