REVIEW JURNAL

“Work hard, play hard…or maybe not: A look at the relationships between
workaholism, work-leisure conflict, and work stress”

Diajukan untuk memenuhi tugas kelompok Mata Kuliah Manajemen SDM lanjutan.
Dosen Pengampu : Ilham Akbar, S.E.,M.Si.

Disusun Oleh:

1. Rendi Herdiansah 20200510297

2. Reviana Nur Azzahra 20200510245
3. Restu Rahayu 20200510063
4. Rizky Tresna Maulana 20200510070
5. Salsabila Fadhilah 20200510247
6. Satrio Pratama 20200510105

Kelas: Manajemen D
Kelompok 5

FAKULTAS EKONOMI PRODI MANAJEMEN

UNIVERSITAS KUNINGAN
2020/2021
 REVIEW JURNAL
Konflik dan Stres Kerja
Jurnal Internasional Terakreditasi Scopus Q2

Judul Work hard, play hard…or maybe not: A look at the relationships
between workaholism, work-leisure conflict, and work stress.
(Bekerja keras, bermain keras…atau mungkin tidak: Melihat
hubungan antara gila kerja, konflik waktu luang, dan stres kerja)
Nama Jurnal Journal of Leisure Research
Volume dan Halaman -
Tahun 2020
Penulis Emily Meier, Shahnaz Aziz, Karl Wuensch & Christyn Dolbier
Reviewer Rendi Herdiansah, Reviana Nur Azzahra, Restu Rahayu, Rizky
Tresna Maulana, Salsabila Fadhilah, Satrio Pratama.

Tanggal Reviewer 23 Maret 2022

Latar Belakang Tempat kerja terus berubah. Teknologi telah membuatnya
sedemikian rupa sehingga kantor bukan satu-satunya tempat di
mana pekerjaan dapat dilakukan. Akibatnya, hal ini menyulitkan
orang untuk memutuskan hubungan kerja Karena lingkungan kerja
yang selalu berubah, orang-orang lebih banyak bekerja dari rumah
dan kurang mampu memutuskan hubungan kerja. Dengan
demikian, sulit bagi mereka untuk membedakan antara kehidupan
pribadi dan pekerjaan mereka, menyebabkan konflik kerja-waktu
luang. Ada minat yang tumbuh dalam hubungan kerja-waktu
senggang karena pengaruh waktu luang memiliki mengatasi stres.
Meskipun domain kerja-waktu senggang masih relatif baru,
beberapa peneliti telah meneliti pekerjaan dan keluarga.
Workaholism dikaitkan dengan peningkatan ketidakseimbangan
kehidupan kerja. Ketika karyawan merasa tuntutan di tempat kerja
tidak sesuai dengan sumber daya yang tersedia bagi mereka, itu
menghasilkan ketegangan psikologis dan fisik yang disebut stres
kerja. Stres kerja juga buruk untuk bisnis. Hal ini terkait dengan
kinerja pekerjaan yang lebih rendah.
Tujuan Penelitian Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menyelidiki potensi
keterlibatan kerja-waktu luang konflik antara workaholism dan
stres kerja.
Permasalahan Hubungan antara gila kerja dan stres kerja, dan bagaimana konflik
waktu luang kerja dapat memoderasi.
Metodelogi Penelitian Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kuantitatif berupa
mengumpulakan data peserta dan prosedur dengan melakukan
kuisioner.
Hasil Penelitian Hubungan antara gila kerja, konflik kerja-waktu luang, dan stres
kerja diperiksa. Sampel terdiri dari 339 orang dewasa yang bekerja
di Amerika Serikat. Workaholism berkorelasi positif dengan stres
kerja. Selain itu, konflik waktu luang kerja berhubungan positif
dengan workaholism dan stres kerja. Selain itu, meskipun bukan
moderator yang signifikan, konflik kerja-waktu luang adalah
mediator yang signifikan antara kecanduan kerja dan stres kerja
sehingga kecanduan kerja mengarah pada peningkatan konflik
kerja-waktu luang, yang pada gilirannya mengarah pada
peningkatan stres kerja. Hasilnya membentuk jangkauan
workaholism yang luas karena juga dapat mempengaruhi stres
kerja melalui variabel lain, seperti konflik kerja-waktu luang.
Mengembangkan intervensi untuk konflik kerja-waktu luang dapat
secara khusus membantu pecandu kerja mengurangi stres kerja
mereka, karena mereka mungkin merasa lebih mudah daripada
menurunkan perilaku gila kerja mereka.
Kesimpulan Temuan studi saat ini akan memberikan wawasan penting tentang
kehidupan non-kerja pecandu kerja, serta cara cara di mana
organisasi dan individu yang terkena dampak dapat mengurangi
beberapa konsekuensi negatif dari stres kerja dengan mengurangi
konflik kerja-rekreasi atau mempromosikan kohesi kerja-waktu
luang. Karena waktu luang memiliki banyak manfaat, memajukan
kohesi ini membantu pengusaha memerangi perilaku gila kerja dan
mengurangi stres kerja. Membangun hubungan antara
workaholism dan konflik work-leisure adalah langkah pertama
 menuju penentuan solusi praktis untuk masalah ini. Setelah tautan
ditentukan, itu akan membuka pintu untuk studi penelitian di masa
depan tentang bagaimana hubungan ini dapat dipengaruhi oleh
variabel lain, dan hasil potensial untuk konflik kerja-waktu luang.
Berdasarkan teori COR Hobfoll (1989) , stres kerja terjadi ketika
tuntutan pekerjaan menjadi berlebihan karena kekurangan sumber
daya yang nyata atau yang dirasakan. Selanjutnya, memastikan
mediasi antara workaholism dan stres kerja dapat membantu
menjelaskan cara yang berbeda di mana workaholism
berkontribusi terhadap stres kerja, baik secara langsung maupun
tidak langsung melalui, misalnya, konflik kerja-waktu luang.
Hubungan ini menunjukkan bahwa workaholism tidak hanya
menjadi masalah di tempat kerja tetapi juga di luar kantor.
Kelebihan  Pada penelitian ini , proses dan input datanya sangat jelas
dan mudah di pahami dengan menggunakan teknik
kuisioner satu-persatu.
 Penelitian ini cukup detail.
Kekurangan  Pengumpulan datanya hanya terbatas pada nilai dan
jumlah, dan tidak subjektif.
 Journal of Leisure Research

ISSN: 0022-2216 (Print) 2159-6417 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujlr20

Work hard, play hard…or maybe not: A look at the

relationships between workaholism, work-leisure
conflict, and work stress

Emily Meier, Shahnaz Aziz, Karl Wuensch & Christyn Dolbier

To cite this article: Emily Meier, Shahnaz Aziz, Karl Wuensch & Christyn Dolbier (2020): Work
hard, play hard…or maybe not: A look at the relationships between workaholism, work-leisure
conflict, and work stress, Journal of Leisure Research, DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2020.1778589

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1778589

Published online: 17 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujlr20
JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1778589

Work hard, play hard … or maybe not: A look at the

relationships between workaholism, work-leisure conflict,
and work stress
Emily Meier, Shahnaz Aziz, Karl Wuensch, and Christyn Dolbier
Department of Psychology, East Carolina University

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Relationships between workaholism, work-leisure conflict, and work Workaholism; work-leisure
stress were examined. The sample consisted of 339 working adults conflict; work stress;
in the United States. Workaholism was positively correlated with occupational health
work stress. Additionally, work leisure conflict was positively related
to both workaholism and work stress. Moreover, though not a sig-
nificant moderator, work-leisure conflict was a significant mediator
between workaholism and work stress such that workaholism leads
to increased work-leisure conflict, which in turn leads to heightened
work stress. The results establish workaholism’s wide reach as it can
also affect work stress through other variables, such as work-leisure
conflict. Developing interventions for work-leisure conflict can espe-
cially help workaholics reduce their work stress, as they might find it
easier than lowering their workaholic behaviors.

The workplace is constantly changing. Technology has made it such that the office is
not the only place where work can be done. Consequently, this makes it difficult for
people to disconnect from work (Burke, 2009); sending emails and making phone calls
can be done anytime, anywhere. This ability to remain linked to work, combined with a
work environment in which employees are expected to stay connected, can lead to nega-
tive outcomes (Aziz & Moyer, 2018; Clark et al., 2016; Schaufeli et al., 2009). This is
especially true of workaholics.
Oates (1971) first coined the term workaholism and characterized it as an uncontrol-
lable need to work excessively. Its definition has been debated over the years (Thomas
et al., 2007), but Clark et al. (2016) meta-analysis established it as the compulsive ten-
dency to work excessively hard (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Workaholism is associated with
negative outcomes to the individual, interpersonal relationships, and to organizations
(Clark et al., 2016). Such deleterious consequences include burnout (Schaufeli et al.,
2009) and work stress (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Additionally, this excess time working
interferes with one’s work-life balance, making it difficult to participate in leisure activ-
ities. This is especially true in organizations with an overwork climate in which work-
aholism tends to be exacerbated (Mazzetti et al., 2014). Indeed, research demonstrates
workaholics indicate more work-family conflict compared to non-workaholics

CONTACT Shahnaz Aziz azizs@ecu.edu

ß 2020 National Recreation and Park Association
2 E. MEIER ET AL.

(Andreassen, 2014; Andreassen et al., 2013; Bonebright et al., 2000; Russo & Waters,
2006; Taris et al., 2005).
In the current study, the link between workaholism and work stress, and how work-
leisure conflict might moderate and/or mediate this relationship, was examined. Work
stress is a positive correlate of workaholism (Aziz & Zickar, 2006) and positively related
to burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intention to leave (Fried et al., 2008). Moreover, leis-
ure helps decrease the negative influence of work stress (Iwasaki, 2001). Work-leisure
conflict is an aspect of work-life balance, which refers to the assignment of priorities
between work and lifestyle (Fernandez-Crehuet et al., 2016). As discussed in Aziz and
Zickar (2006), work-life balance is a broad definition that encompasses a wider range of
non-work factors than used in previous studies. Most research on non-work life has
focused on family, especially families with children. Focusing on leisure allows for the
inclusion of a wider variety of people given that not all employees, including worka-
holics, have children (Clark et al., 2016).
Due to the ever-changing work environment, people are working more from home
and are less capable of disconnecting from work. As such, it is difficult for them to dif-
ferentiate between their personal and work lives, causing work-leisure conflict. Work-
leisure conflict is an important variable due to the work structure of the United States
(and other countries), where work is often the focus of one’s life. This cultural focus on
work may relate to conflict when one prefers to focus more on personal life. Work-leis-
ure conflict is a way to measure the extent to which that conflict is occurring in an
individual’s life, and it occurs when leisure and work are incompatible (Tsaur
et al., 2012).
There is growing interest in the work-leisure relationship due to the influence leisure
has on coping with stress. Though the work-leisure domain is still relatively new, some
researchers have examined work and family. Workaholism is associated with increased
work-life imbalance (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Similarly, Shkoler et al. (2017) found work
drive, a common feature of workaholics, was also positively related to work-family con-
flict. Given that work-leisure conflict is an aspect of work-life balance, perhaps work-
aholism affects this realm as well. Additionally, those who are unable to gain the
benefits from leisure might have fewer emotional resources available to them when they
return to work. As work stress often arises from a lack of sufficient resources, based on
Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory, perhaps work-leisure conflict
reduces the resources available to employees, thereby opening the doorway to greater
work stress, as leisure is an important coping mechanism (Iwasaki, 2001). Thus, there
could be an indirect relationship between workaholism and work stress through work-
leisure conflict due to the loss of resources a lack of leisure time may instigate.
Currently, the relationship between workaholism and work-leisure conflict has not
been investigated, so the current study provides novel findings to help organizations
alleviate the negative outcomes related to workaholism and work stress. It is important
to understand these relationships because of the strong negative influence work stress
has on both organizations (e.g., absenteeism; Darr & Johns, 2008) and its employees
(e.g., burnout; Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991)—a detailed review of these detrimental
associations is provided below in the section on “Work stress.” Establishing a link
between workaholism, work-leisure conflict, and work stress allows for a dual-target
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 3

approach to this issue whereby methods to reduce workaholism and work-leisure con-
flict simultaneously, subsequently reducing work stress and lowering burnout, could be
developed. Examining how these variables interact with one another sheds light on
future solutions.

Workaholism overview
Workaholics are similar to engaged workers in that they work excessively, though work-
aholics are less satisfied with their jobs and experience less enjoyment, whereas engaged
workers are passionate about their work (van Beek et al., 2013). Thus, work engagement
is the positive type of heavy work investment, while workaholism is the negative type.
From an organizational perspective, workaholism is correlated in different ways with
job demands, job resources, organizational behavior, and employee well-being (Schaufeli
et al., 2009). Specifically, it is positively related to job demands, but negatively associated
with job resources and employee well-being; organizational behavior (e.g., presenteeism)
is also negatively related to workaholism (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Companies with an
overwork climate may also foster workaholism in those individuals who are high in
achievement motivation, perfectionism, conscientiousness, and self-efficacy (Mazzetti
et al., 2014).

Work stress overview

When employees feel the demands at work do not match the resources available to
them, it results in both a psychological and a physical strain called work stress (Ganster
& Schaubroeck, 1991). Stressors cause an appraisal of the situation, which may trigger
counterproductive behavioral or psychological responses (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Moreover, theses stressors make employees feel threatened, leading to negative reactions
(e.g., anxiety) which create strain (Spector, 2002). According to the COR theory, the
personal resources we utilize are restricted, and thus we seek to obtain and sustain
them (Hobfoll, 1989). Individuals may try to conserve their resources for use at a later
time, however, once depleted they cannot be used in other areas, thereby resulting in
stress due to the loss of resources (van Wijhe et al., 2013). Stress can occur whether the
resources are actually exhausted, or even when there is a threat to the loss of resources
(Moyer et al., 2017). In turn, work stress results in negative outcomes such as absentee-
ism, burnout, and turnover (Aziz et al., 2018).
The influence of work stress is physiological and psychological in nature. Physical
symptoms include high cortisol levels (Herr et al., 2018), gastrointestinal problems and
sleep disturbances (Nixon et al., 2011), high blood pressure (Ganster & Schaubroeck,
1991), and increased risk of stroke (Huang et al., 2015). As stressors continue unad-
dressed, burnout is one of the biggest psychological symptoms of work stress (Ganster
& Schaubroeck, 1991). In turn, burnout is related to mental health problems such as
depression, anxiety, and sleep issues (Song et al., 2017). Similarly, work stress is associ-
ated with a higher risk of clinical depression (Madsen et al., 2017) and suicidal ideation
(Loerbroks et al., 2016).
4 E. MEIER ET AL.

Work stress is bad for business as well. It is related to lower job performance (Fried
et al., 2008), higher absenteeism (Darr & Johns, 2008), and intention to leave
(Duraisingam et al., 2009). Fortunately, trying to limit stressors decreases the occurrence
of work stress.

Work-leisure conflict overview

Work-leisure conflict is a form of inter-role conflict where the pressures of work and
leisure roles are incompatible (Tsaur et al., 2012). Stemming from work and nonwork
life theories (Wong & Lin, 2007), work-leisure conflict focuses on the aspect of leisure
and its relationship to work. It is assessed similarly to models of work-family conflict
and facilitation, but rather than a focus on family life, it looks into how leisure activity
may affect or be affected by work. Leisure is an intrinsically satisfying activity that
occurs during discretionary time that individuals choose to participate in (Lobo, 2006).
When one is unable to fully participate in leisure, whether physically or mentally, it
may be due to work interfering with personal life. When work interferes with one’s abil-
ity to participate in leisure activities, it causes conflict.
The conflict between work and leisure is bidirectional. This two-way model is similar
to work-life models, whereby work can interfere with leisure and leisure can interfere
with work to cause conflict (Tsaur et al., 2012). This conflict has negative personal and
organizational influences. Work-to-leisure conflict negatively influences leisure satisfac-
tion and psychological well-being, and job satisfaction is negatively related to both
work-to-leisure and leisure-to-work conflict (Tsaur & Yen, 2018). Work-leisure conflict
is also positively related to work stress (Mansour & Mohanna, 2018).
To date, much of the research on work-leisure conflict has been with regard to ser-
vice employees such as hotel workers (Mansour & Mohanna, 2018; Wong & Lin, 2007).
This is because they do not tend to have a typical 9 to 5 schedule, making it difficult
for them to balance leisure with work (Lin et al., 2014). Similarly, as workaholics tend
to work and think about work incessantly compared to other employees, perhaps they
also experience such incompatibility between their work and leisure roles. Work-leisure
conflict needs to be studied in a wider frame to determine the extent to which it may
affect employees in other occupations. As workaholics are already costing companies in
terms of, for example, absenteeism and healthcare, work-leisure conflict experienced by
them may create even more problems. If a workaholic is experiencing substantial work-
leisure conflict, they may have more work-life imbalance issues, and thus more negative
outcomes, than a workaholic with low work-leisure conflict. Perhaps those who experi-
ence work-leisure conflict are having even more difficulties than those who are not.

Current study
The current study findings will provide essential insight into workaholics’ non-work
lives, as well as ways in which affected organizations and individuals may decrease
some of the negative consequences of work stress by reducing work-leisure conflict or
promoting work-leisure cohesion. As leisure has many benefits, advancing this cohesion
helps employers combat workaholic behaviors and reduce work stress. Establishing a
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 5

relationship between workaholism and work-leisure conflict is the first step toward
determining practical solutions to these issues. Once a link is determined, it will open
doors to future research studies on how this association may be influenced by other var-
iables, and the potential outcomes to having work-leisure conflict.
Additionally, demonstrating work-leisure conflict as a moderator between work-
aholism and work stress could prove useful in understanding how workaholics think
about leisure in relation to their work, and how this may affect their perceived
stress. Furthermore, ascertaining a mediation between workaholism and work stress
may help explain the different ways in which workaholism contributes to work
stress, both directly and indirectly through, for example, work-leisure conflict. This
relationship shows that workaholism is not only an issue in the workplace but out-
side of the office as well.
Work already takes up a substantial portion of an employee’s day. Those who exhibit
workaholic tendencies, however, work and think about work even more than the aver-
age person, leading to deleterious outcomes. A few studies have investigated the rela-
tionship between workaholism and work stress (Aziz et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2016;
Spence & Robbins, 1992). The findings show that the more workaholic behavior that is
exhibited, the more likely individuals will experience work stress. This is partially due
to their stressful work environment and their high work drive and unrealistic expecta-
tions of themselves (Aziz et al., 2018).
Workaholics do not want to delegate tasks, which could result in job demands
becoming overwhelming, thereby leading to work stress (Spence & Robbins, 1992).
Workaholics also constantly think about work, which makes it harder to decompress
(Scott et al., 1997). Based on Hobfoll’s (1989) COR theory, work stress occurs when job
demands become overwhelming due to real or perceived resource deficiency. Thus, the
following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Workaholism will be positively related to work stress.
Leisure has been studied as a means for coping with stress in a variety of ways. For
instance, it is used as a source of facilitation for work and family (Knecht et al., 2016),
and as a method for coping with stress from work (Winwood et al., 2007) as well as
stress in general (Iwasaki, 2001, 2006; Iwasaki et al., 2002; Trenberth & Dewe, 2005).
Leisure coping also improves mental health and psychological well-being (Iwasaki, 2001;
Iwasaki et al., 2002).
An increase in burnout has been exhibited when greater levels of work-leisure conflict
are experienced (Mansour & Tremblay, 2016). Given that work stress is strongly linked
to burnout, it may also be influenced by work-leisure conflict. If there is a conflict
between work and leisure, it makes it difficult to participate in leisure activities, which
in turn can reduce the benefits typically seen from leisure. In turn, if individuals are
unable to participate in their typical leisure activities, they might not be able to cope
with the stress they feel from work. In fact, Mansour and Mohanna (2018) found work-
family conflict and work-leisure conflict to be positively related to work stress.
Similarly, we hope to replicate these findings. Therefore, the following hypothesis
is predicted:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Work-leisure conflict will be positively related to work stress.
6 E. MEIER ET AL.

Although there has not been any formal research conducted on the connection
between workaholism and work-leisure conflict, research on work-life balance and
workaholism has found that workaholics exhibit higher work-life imbalance (Aziz &
Zickar, 2006). As work-leisure conflict is a part of non-work life, it may be that worka-
holics will also experience an imbalance in their leisure activities. Thus, the following
hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Workaholism will be positively related to work-leisure conflict.
Given that workaholics work excessively, this may lead to problems with their non-
work lives. Previous studies have already linked the issues workaholics have with non-
leisure work-life balance (Aziz & Zickar, 2006) and social relationships (Clark et al.,
2016). Those who experience less work-leisure conflict may be able to see the
benefits that leisure has on reducing work stress. Conversely, individuals whose work
interferes with their leisure activities (i.e., those with high work-leisure conflict), may
not be able to reduce work stress, and could even find their levels of work stress to be
exacerbated.
A goal of the current study was to investigate the potential involvement work-leisure
conflict has between workaholism and work stress. Work stress due to workaholism
may be reduced, as leisure has been shown to be a source of facilitation between work
and family (Knecht et al., 2016). Work-leisure conflict is also negatively related to well-
being (Lin et al., 2014), so adding workaholism into the mix can contribute to the nega-
tive influence already seen from work-leisure conflict. Doing so could provide useful
insight into methods to combat the negative influence of workaholism. Given the dearth
of research between work-leisure conflict and workaholism, this study aimed to explore
work-leisure conflict as a potential moderator of the relationship between workaholism
and work stress. Due to the relationship leisure has with work stress, and the proposed
association between workaholism and work-leisure conflict, we investigated how work-
leisure conflict can strengthen the relationship between workaholism and work stress,
possibly due to the inability to achieve the benefits of leisure. When workaholics experi-
ence conflict in their non-work lives, such as with leisure activities, the stress already
associated with workaholism may be augmented. Hence, the following hypothesis
is advanced:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Work-leisure conflict will moderate the relationship between
workaholism and work stress in an additive manner such that the greater the level of
work-leisure conflict, the stronger the relationship between workaholism and work stress.
As workaholism is strongly related to work stress, it is important to understand how
this process occurs, as well as other factors that could affect this relationship.
Workaholism may be influencing work stress both directly and indirectly through other
means, such as work-leisure conflict. Given that workaholics continue to work exces-
sively and experience conflict between their work and non-work lives, particularly their
leisure, this might make it challenging for them to fully recover from work when they
are at home. The constant pressure work has on individuals may not allow them to par-
ticipate in the leisure activities they desire. Because leisure is an essential method for
employees to decompress and de-stress, this inability to recover from work due to
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 7

work-leisure conflict may in turn lead to work stress. As such, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The relationship between workaholism and work stress will be
mediated by work-leisure conflict. That is, workaholism leads to increased work-leisure
conflict, which in turn leads to heightened work stress.

Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 339 current full-time (i.e., work at least 40 h per week) employees
over the age of 18. Labor market characteristics were determined based on the
Occupational Information Network (O
NET) career clusters, which includes occupations
in the same field that necessitate comparable skills. Employees worked in various industries
within the United States, the most common being education and training (15%). Others
included marketing, sales, and service (10%), health science (8%), government and public
administration (8%), and manufacturing (8%). Participants ranged from 22 to 80 or older
(M ¼ 40.01, SD ¼ 11.45), and 60% of the respondents identified as female and 40% as
male. Forty-eight percent were married, 26% were single, and 55% had at least one child.
Nineteen percent indicated that, other than a parental role, they had a role outside of their
job (e.g., taking care of an elderly relative). In terms of race/ethnicity, 80% were White/
Caucasian, 10% Black/African American, 4% Hispanic/Latino, 7% Asian, 1% Native
American, and 1% Other. Participants could select all races/ethnicities that applied to
them, thereby resulting in a total exceeding 100%. Regarding the level of education, 15%
had a high school diploma, 11% an associate’s degree, 48% a bachelor’s degree, 3% a pro-
fessional degree (e.g., M.D.), 22% a master’s degree, and 1% a doctorate. Forty-seven per-
cent worked in non-management positions, 22% in first line management, 21% in middle
management, and 7% in senior management. Respondents worked roughly 7.7 years in
their current position and 7.8 years in their current organization. Income brackets varied
whereby 4% made less than $20,000, 27% between $20,000 and $39,999, 27% between
$40,000 and $59,999, 21% between $60,000 and $79,999, 11% between $80,000 and 99,999,
7% between $100,000 and $149,999, and 3% earned $150,000 and above.
The average total hours worked per week was 45 (SD ¼ 6.96), which includes hours
spent at work plus hours of work done outside the office that directly supports one’s
position’s duties. The average hours worked per week from home was 23 (SD ¼ 8.76).
Finally, participants spent an average of 23 (SD ¼ 8.23) hours per week on leisure,
defined as any activity one actively participates in for enjoyment that is not related
to employment.

Procedure
The survey was disseminated through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online
portal that recruits participants. Individuals choose which studies they wish to partici-
pate in, and are given a small monetary incentive ($0.20 for this study) for participa-
tion. MTurk enables participants to be filtered so only those people who match certain
8 E. MEIER ET AL.

criteria can participate. The following filters were applied: full-time, US-based, number
of Human Intelligence Tasks (HITs) greater than or equal to 100, and a HIT approval
rating of at least 95%. The survey was administered through an online software program
called Qualtrics. Individuals were provided with a study overview, participation require-
ments, and completion time (i.e., 10–15 min). Those who chose to participate were
given informed consent, acknowledging the voluntary nature of the study and ensuring
confidentiality and anonymity. After giving consent, respondents completed the survey
and were assessed on measures of workaholism, work stress, and work-leisure conflict.

Measures
Workaholism
The Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire (WAQ; Aziz et al., 2013) was used to assess
workaholism unidimensionally. The 29-item WAQ is scored on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), where higher scores indicate
greater levels of workaholism. A sample item is, “I think about work constantly.” A
Cronbach’s a of .89 was obtained.

Work stress
The 8-item Stress in General-Revised (SIG-R; Yankelevich et al., 2012) was used to
measure work stress. The SIG-R is scored on a three-point scale (“Yes,” “No,” or
“Cannot Decide”), whereby higher scores reflect more work stress. A sample item is,
“pressured.” A Cronbach’s a of .86 was attained.

Work-leisure conflict
Work-leisure conflict was measured using the 30-item Bi-Directional Work-Leisure
Conflict Scale (BI-WLCS; Tsaur et al., 2012). The BI-WLCS assesses conflict in two
directions, namely, work interfering with leisure (WIL) and leisure interfering with
work (LIW). We examined the scale as a whole given our interest in how both work
interfering with leisure and leisure interfering with work affect workaholism and work
stress as a composite. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), where higher scores indicate more conflict. A sample
item is, “After leisure activities, I’m too tired to work.” A Cronbach’s a of .95
was found.

Results
In the current study, relationships among workaholism, work stress, and work-leisure
conflict were investigated (see Table 1). The results supported H1 in that workaholism
positively correlated with work stress, r ¼ .337, p < .001, 95% CI [.24, .427]. The findings
also supported H2 in that work-leisure conflict positively related to work stress, r ¼ .358,
p < .001, 95% CI [.262, .447]. Finally, H3 was also supported in that work-leisure conflict
positively related to workaholism, r ¼ .698, p < .001, 95% CI [.64, .748].
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 9

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. WAQ (.93)
2. WLC .70

(.95)
3. WS .34

.36

(.86)
4. Age .06 .07 .06 –
5. Gender .02 .02 .14
.08 –
6. Education .05 .01 .05 .00 .01 –
7. HPW .45

.28

.18

.04 .00 .04 –
8. HFH .15

.13
.08 .02 .00 .09 .32

–
9. Leisure .21

.27

.07 .07 .17

.05 .07 .08
Range 1.0–4.6 1.0–4.4 0.0–3.0 22–80þ 1–2 1–7 40–70þ 20–70þ 20–70þ
Mean 2.56 2.26 1.53 40.08 1.60 4.09 45.12 23.15 23.68
SD .71 .70 1.04 11.45 .49 1.32 6.96 8.76 8.23
Note. N ¼ 332. Entries on the main diagonal are Cronbach’s alphas. WAQ: Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire; WLC:
Work-Leisure Conflict Scale; WS: Work Stress Scale; HPW: hours worked per week; HFH: hours worked from home;
Leisure: hours spent on leisure.
Male coded with “1” and female coded with “2.”

p < .05,

p < .001.

Table 2. Predicting work stress from workaholism and work-leisure conflict.

Zero-order r
Variable WAQ WLC WS b sr2
WAQ (.89) .697

.338

.184
.020
WLC (.95) .351

.224
.026
WS (.86)
Gender .02 .02 .14
.144
M 2.56 2.26 1.53
SD .71 .70 1.04 R2 ¼.160


Note. N ¼ 338. Entries on the main diagonal are Cronbach’s alphas. WAQ: Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire; WLC:
Work-Leisure Conflict Scale; WS: Work Stress Scale.
Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female.

p < .05,

p < .001.

Multiple regression analysis results indicated workaholism (p ¼ .009) and work-

leisure conflict (p ¼ .002) had significant partial effects in the full model for predicting
work stress, as did being female (p ¼ .004, women reported greater stress than did
men) (see Table 2). The two-predictor model accounted for 16% of the variance in
work stress, F(3, 334) ¼ 21.24, p < .001, R2 ¼ .16.
Next, an interaction term (i.e., WAQ X WLC) was added to the model to test for
work-leisure conflict as a moderator between workaholism and work stress. Adding the
interaction term did not significantly increase the explained variance in work stress,
F(1, 333) ¼ .045, p ¼ .831, DR2 < .001. Thus, work-leisure conflict did not act as a
moderator, and H4 was not supported.
Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS was used to test a mediation model with work-leisure con-
flict as a mediator between workaholism and work stress with gender a covariate. The
total effect of workaholism on work stress, r ¼ .340, was partitioned into a direct effect
of .184, 95% CI [.046, .322] and an indirect effect of .156, 95% CI [.050, .265]. This
finding supports H5—work-leisure conflict acts as a mediator between workaholism and
work stress (see Figure 1).
A helpful reviewer suggested that we split work-leisure conflict into its two compo-
nents, work interfering with leisure (WIL) and leisure interfering with work (LIW) as a
post-hoc additional analysis. We did so and found the results worthy of attention. WIL
10 E. MEIER ET AL.

Figure 1. Workaholism’s relationship to work stress as mediated by work-leisure conflict. Note:
p <
.05,

p < .001. Gender was a covariate.

Figure 2. Workaholism’s relationship to work stress as mediated by work-leisure and leisure-work

conflict. Note:
p < .001. Gender was a covariate.

and LIW were significantly correlated, r ¼ .505, p < .001. Neither significantly moder-
ated the relationship between workaholism and work stress. However, both were signifi-
cant mediators of the relationship between workaholism and work stress (see Figure 2).
The indirect effect through WIL was positive and significant, .374, 95% CI [.262, .496].
The indirect effect through LIW was negative and significant, .075, 95% CI
[.132, .032].

Discussion
The current study exceeds past research by examining two possible ways in which work-
aholism is related to work-life balance issues, namely, work-leisure conflict. By studying
work-leisure conflict as a moderator and a mediator between workaholism and work
stress, we can better understand how these variables are related. With a mediation, we
can determine if workaholism is both directly and indirectly related to work stress. By
testing a moderation model, we can establish whether workaholism interacts with work-
leisure conflict in such a way that it changes the relationship workaholism has with
work stress.
The link between workaholism and work stress was first investigated. Our results sup-
port past research which has established a strong positive relationship between work-
aholism and work stress (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). This finding makes sense from a
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 11

practical standpoint, as workaholism is common in those with a high drive to work.

This work drive is also related to increased stress as employees feel a compulsion to
work (Schaufeli et al., 2009) as well as feelings of guilt when they are not working
(Clark et al., 2016). In turn, this may contribute to greater issues (e.g., burnout) if work
stress persists and remains untreated (Fried et al., 2008).
Next, the relationship between work-leisure conflict and work stress was examined.
This correlation has not been studied extensively, however, some studies have shown a
connection between these two variables (Mansour & Mohanna, 2018). Our findings are
consistent with leisure time being linked to reduced levels of stress (Iwasaki, 2001). As
employees are unable to achieve balance between their work and non-work lives, they
find it challenging to participate in the activities they enjoy. Those who experienced
more conflict between their work and leisure lives, displayed greater levels of work
stress. As this conflict continues untreated, employees not only miss the benefits leisure
has on work stress, but they also start to feel additional stress as this source of facilita-
tion between work and personal life is lost (Knecht et al., 2016). Thus, because leisure
acts as a buffer on stress between work and personal life, having work-leisure conflict
reduces how much leisure benefits individuals, possibly resulting in further stress.
The relationship between workaholism and work-leisure conflict was also assessed.
Workaholism relates to work-life issues because workaholics are consumed with work,
which contributes to an imbalance between their work and personal lives (Aziz &
Zickar, 2006). Similarly, work-leisure conflict was positively related to workaholism, sug-
gesting those who exhibit workaholic tendencies feel an imbalance between their work
and personal activities. This imbalance eventually becomes significant enough to be con-
sidered a conflict. Workaholics who continually experience these behaviors eventually
feel imbalance and conflict, which may lead to further issues such as decreased well-
being (Lin et al., 2014), lower job satisfaction (Tsaur & Yen, 2018), and increased burn-
out (Mansour & Tremblay, 2016).
Work-leisure conflict was explored as a moderator between workaholism and work
stress, such that it would strengthen the relationship between them. The findings did
not support this hypothesis perhaps due to the strong relationship between workaholism
and work-leisure conflict, making the interaction between them insignificant. Based on
the COR theory, these drained resources may have more of a linear effect than they do
an interactive one. Perhaps the level of work-leisure conflict is irrelevant, and any con-
flict present may suffice to influence the relationship between workaholism and work
stress, even at very low levels, by limiting one’s available resources. Thus, more work-
leisure conflict may not strengthen that relationship because the effect of drain on
resources is already present at the lowest levels of conflict. Regardless of how much
work-leisure conflict is experienced, the association between workaholism and work
stress remains the same. Additionally, as discussed below, the mediation was significant,
thus, the relationship between these variables may be more linear than interactive. That
is, workaholism may lead to work-leisure conflict, which may lead to work stress, but
these variables do not seem to interact or change at varying levels. More research is
needed to fully understand how these two constructs are related, and to what extent
their relationship affects other variables, such as work stress.
12 E. MEIER ET AL.

Finally, work-leisure conflict was tested as a mediator between workaholism and

work stress. This model suggests those who exhibit higher levels of workaholism are
likely going to have more conflict between their work and non-work lives. This conflict
will positively relate to work-leisure conflict, which in turn will positively relate to work
stress. The findings support this notion and suggest work-leisure conflict mediates the
relationship between workaholism and work stress. Specifically, WIL and LIW were sig-
nificant mediators. Essentially, workaholics endure more work stress than their non-
workaholic counterparts. Additionally, they experience more imbalance between work
and leisure, thereby leading to work-leisure conflict. This conflict then leads to greater
work stress. Hence, workaholism is associated with higher levels of work stress, both
directly and indirectly, through work-leisure conflict. This result suggests the work-life
balance issues which may arise from workaholism could exacerbate one’s work stress
indirectly, above and beyond the stress one already experiences from workaholism itself.
Given that work-leisure conflict partially mediates the relationship between workaholism
and work stress, diminishing it will notably influence work stress. Schedule and time-off
flexibility can lower work-leisure conflict (Lin et al., 2014), thus, organizations can util-
ize such approaches to decrease conflict and, in turn, reduce work stress. Job demands
are another organizational factor that contribute to work-leisure conflict (Wong & Lin,
2007), hence, companies can lower conflict by creating policies aimed at reducing the
job demands on at-risk employees.

Study limitations
The study findings contribute to the current literature, however, some limitations are
noted. MTurk is a relatively new source to collect data, and it yields high quality data
when using employees with high approval ratings (Peer et al., 2014). Accordingly, we
used HIT approval ratings of 95% or above and more than 100 HITs completed, to
ensure participants responded accurately. Additionally, as it is important to identify
inattentive respondents in online samples (Fleischer et al., 2015), validation checks were
applied to omit cases where any participant answered more than two of the five ques-
tions incorrectly. MTurk is a useful resource for fields such as Industrial/Organizational
psychology given that data obtained with it exhibit high levels of stability of relation-
ships and reliability (Michel et al., 2018).
Consistent with prior findings which demonstrate MTurk provides demographically
diverse participants (Berinsky et al., 2012), respondents in the current study came from
various races/ethnicities, industries, income brackets, and education levels. However,
because 80% of the sample was White/Caucasian, future researchers should target spe-
cific demographic groups to compare and contrast how these relationships can affect
different people. That said, MTurk enables researchers to use working populations more
easily, as the average number of hours a full-time college student works is 15 h per
week (Darolia, 2014), making research geared toward full-time employees more difficult
when using student populations. Moreover, Michel et al. (2018) found the effect sizes of
organizational and occupational health variables in MTurk samples were comparable to
published benchmarks; they conclude MTurk is a practical resource for such research.
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 13

Another limitation is the use of self-report data. Although adding potential bias
to observations is a risk when using self-report surveys, Chan (2008) advocates using
self-report methods does not inevitably result in measurement bias. They provide infor-
mation that may not otherwise be discerned and are simple to disseminate. It is also a
misconception that relationships between variables used in self-report assessments are
more biased than other approaches (Conway & Lance, 2010). The participant’s own per-
ception is what these variables are trying to gauge, thus, using self-report measures is
the most appropriate way to obtain one’s subjective experience.
Common method variance can be a concern when self-report surveys are utilized to
collect data at the same time point from the same participants. Podsakoff et al. (2003)
did a widespread analysis of the literature on common method bias in behavioral
research and discussed its weaknesses. Nonetheless, while some may feel using self-
report data is a limitation, Conway and Lance (2010) convincingly debated its use is not
inferior to others’ reports, nor do the relationships among the variables cause upwardly
biased outcomes.
A final limitation is the use of a cross-sectional design, hence, causal attributions can-
not be inferred. Longitudinal research is needed to better explain how these relation-
ships may change and influence each other over time. Studying these relationships
longitudinally will help researchers establish causality, and enable them to examine if
these links become stronger over time. Perhaps work-leisure conflict continues to
increase if left untreated, similar to the way work stress becomes more problematic in
the form of burnout when left untreated (Aziz et al., 2018). Nonetheless, cross-sectional
designs are inexpensive and efficient, and lay the groundwork prior to implementing a
longitudinal study (Caruana et al., 2015).

Organizational implications and future directions

Although both organizational and personal factors contribute to workaholism (Mazzetti
et al., 2014), organizational factors are easier to modify. Accordingly, managers can help
mitigate the occurrence of workaholism by changing the organizational climate and cre-
ating a work culture and policies designed to reduce overwork (e.g., lowering job
demands for such employees). Supervisor support can also help reduce work stress
(Spurk et al., 2016). Additionally, organizations could implement stress management
programs to mediate the influences of work stress which they cannot prevent. In turn,
such interventions may enhance organizational productivity and employee health and
well-being (Babatunde, 2013). The study findings provide insight into how workaholism
is related to such non-work issues as work-leisure conflict, thereby shedding light on
how workaholics’ non-work lives are affected by their workaholic behavior (e.g., work
interfering with the activities they enjoy). Organizations should be increasingly con-
cerned with those who exhibit workaholic tendencies, especially given the dire conse-
quences they will encounter (e.g., absenteeism, healthcare costs) if workaholism is left
untreated. The results establish workaholism’s wide reach as it can also affect work
stress through other variables, such as work-leisure conflict. Developing interventions
for work-leisure conflict can especially help workaholics reduce their work stress, as
they might find it easier than lowering their workaholic behaviors.
14 E. MEIER ET AL.

Work stress and workaholism seep into the non-work lives of employees. Work-
leisure conflict is another way employees feel imbalanced between work and home. It is
a more encompassing problem than is work-family conflict, for example, as mostly
everyone engages in leisure. As more people delay getting married and having children,
it is important to investigate how non-family life is influenced by work. Workaholics
may not be participating in enough leisure, making it difficult for them to lower their
work stress. Indeed, workaholism is strongly related to work-leisure conflict, which has
outcomes on its own (e.g., decreased subjective well-being, Knecht et al., 2016; reduced
psychological well-being and job dissatisfaction, Tsaur & Yen, 2018). Organizations
should be concerned if their employees are experiencing work-leisure conflict because it
is also linked to burnout (Mansour & Tremblay, 2016). They can combat this issue in
positive and negative ways. Job demands are positively related to work-leisure conflict
(Lin et al., 2014; Wong & Lin, 2007), while schedule flexibility and time-off flexibility
can reduce work-leisure conflict. Supervisor support can moderate the influence of job
demands on work-leisure conflict by weakening the relationship between these two vari-
ables, as individuals experience less conflict in their role when they feel they are being
supported and understood by their supervisors (Lin et al., 2014). Job control can also
moderate the negative influence of job demands on conflict such that those who think
they have more control over different aspects of their job accept some responsibility
for those job demands, thereby feeling less conflict (Wong & Lin, 2007). In addition to
targeting work stress itself, employers can diminish it through policies that enhance
work-life balance such as increasing paid time off, decreasing after-hours work (e.g., no
after-hours email policy), and providing more support to workaholics. Doing so will not
only improve health and well-being by reducing employees’ work stress and burnout,
but also save organizations money and diminish the negative consequences arising
from stress.

References
Andreassen, C. S. (2014). Workaholism: An overview and current status of the research. Journal
of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.2.2013.017
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2013). Workaholism and work-family spillover in a
cross-sectional sample. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 78–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626201
Aziz, S., & Moyer, F. (2018). Workaholism and occupational health: A translational
review. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 23(4), e12144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.
12144
Aziz, S., Uhrich, B., Wuensch, K. L., & Swords, B. (2013). The Workaholism Analysis
Questionnaire: Emphasizing work-life imbalance and addiction in the measurement of work-
aholism. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 14, 71–86.
Aziz, S., Zamary, S., & Wuensch, K. (2018). The endless pursuit for self-validation through
attainment: An examination of self-esteem in relation to workaholism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 121, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.024
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.
1.52
Babatunde, A. (2013). Occupational stress: A review on conceptualizations, causes and cure.
Economic Insights - Trends & Challenges, 65, 73–80.
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 15

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experi-
mental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://
doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism
with work-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
47(4), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.4.469
Burke, R. J. (2009). Working to live or living to work: Should individuals and organizations care?
Journal of Business Ethics, 84(S2), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9703-6
Caruana, E. J., Roman, M., Hern
andez-S
anchez, J., & Solli, P. (2015). Longitudinal studies.
Journal of Thoracic Disease, 7(11), E537–E540. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.10.
63
Chan, D. (2008). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J.
Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 309–336).
Taylor & Francis.
Clark, M. A., Michel, J. S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S. Y., & Baltes, B. B. (2016). All work and no play?
A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of
Management, 42(7), 1836–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522301
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3),
325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Darolia, R. (2014). Working (and studying) day and night: Heterogeneous effects of working on
the academic performance of full-time and part-time students. Economics of Education Review,
38, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.10.004
Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012639
Duraisingam, V., Pidd, K., & Roche, A. M. (2009). The impact of work stress and job satisfaction
on turnover intentions: A study of Australian specialist alcohol and other drug workers. Drugs:
Education, Prevention & Policy, 16(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687630902876171
Fernandez-Crehuet, J. M., Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Reyes Recio, L. E. (2016). The National
Work–Life Balance Index#: The European case. Social Indicators Research, 128(1), 341–359.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1034-2
Fleischer, A., Mead, A. D., & Huang, J. (2015). Inattentive responding in MTurk and other online
samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.
2015.25
Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job satisfaction
and propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships: Combining meta-analysis
and structural equation modeling. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(4), 305–328.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013932
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of
Management, 17(2), 235–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700202
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation,
and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Herr, R. M., Almer, C., Loerbroks, A., Barrech, A., Elfantel, I., Siegrist, J., G€undel, H., Angerer,
P., & Li, J. (2018). Associations of work stress with hair cortisol concentrations – Initial find-
ings from a prospective study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 89, 134–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.psyneuen.2018.01.011
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Huang, Y., Xu, S., Hua, J., Zhu, D., Liu, C., Hu, Y., Liu, T., & Xu, D. (2015). Association between
job strain and risk of incident stroke: A meta-analysis. Neurology, 85(19), 1648–1654. https://
doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002098
Iwasaki, Y. (2001). Contributions of leisure to coping with daily hassles in university students’
lives. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du
Comportement, 33(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087135
16 E. MEIER ET AL.

Iwasaki, Y. (2006). Counteracting stress through leisure coping: A prospective health study.
Psychology, Health & Medicine, 11(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500500155941
Iwasaki, Y., Mannell, R. C., Smale, B. A., & Butcher, J. (2002). A short-term longitudinal analysis
of leisure coping used by police and emergency response service workers. Journal of Leisure
Research, 34(3), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2002.11949974
Knecht, M., Wiese, B. S., & Freund, A. M. (2016). Going beyond work and family: A longitudinal
study on the role of leisure in the work-life interplay. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
37(7), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2098
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Lin, Y., Huang, W., Yang, C., & Chiang, M. (2014). Work–leisure conflict and its associations
with well-being: The roles of social support, leisure participation and job burnout. Tourism
Management, 45, 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.04.004
Lobo, F. (2006). The work-leisure paradigm: The stresses and strains of maintaining a balanced
lifestyle. World Leisure, 48, 21–32.
Loerbroks, A., Cho, S.-I., Dollard, M. F., Zou, J., Fischer, J. E., Jiang, Y., Angerer, P., Herr, R. M.,
& Li, J. (2016). Associations between work stress and suicidal ideation: Individual-participant
data from six cross-sectional studies. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 90, 62–69. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.09.008
Madsen, I. E. H., Nyberg, S. T., Magnusson Hanson, L. L., Ferrie, J. E., Ahola, K., Alfredsson, L.,
Batty, G. D., Bjorner, J. B., Borritz, M., Burr, H., Chastang, J.-F., de Graaf, R., Dragano, N.,
Hamer, M., Jokela, M., Knutsson, A., Koskenvuo, M., Koskinen, A., Leineweber, C., …
Kivim€aki, M. (2017). Job strain as a risk factor for clinical depression: Systematic review and
meta-analysis with additional individual participant data. Psychological Medicine, 47(8),
1342–1356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171600355X
Mansour, S., & Mohanna, D. (2018). Mediating role of job stress between work-family conflict,
work-leisure conflict, and employees’ perception of service quality in the hotel industry in
France. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15332845.2017.1340755
Mansour, S., & Tremblay, D. (2016). How the need for ‘leisure benefit systems’ as a ‘resource
passageways’ moderates the effect of work-leisure conflict on job burnout and intention to
leave: A study in the hotel industry in Quebec. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 27, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.02.002
Mazzetti, G., Schaufeli, W. B., & Guglielmi, D. (2014). Are workaholics born or made? Relations
of workaholism with person characteristics and overwork climate. International Journal of
Stress Management, 21(3), 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035700
Michel, J. S., O’Neill, S. K., Hartman, P., & Lorys, A. (2018). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a
viable source for organizational and occupational health research. Occupational Health Science,
2(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-017-0009-x
Moyer, F., Aziz, S., & Wuensch, K. (2017). From workaholism to burnout: Psychological capital
as a mediator. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10(3), 213–227. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-10-2016-0074
Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work make you
sick? A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work
& Stress, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.569175
Oates, W. E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. World.
Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality
on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.
3758/s13428-013-0434-y
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Russo, J. A., & Waters, L. E. (2006). Workaholic worker type differences in work–family conflict:
The moderating role of supervisor support and flexible work scheduling. Career Development
International, 11(5), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430610683052
 JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 17

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., van der Heijden, F. A., & Prins, J. T. (2009). Workaholism among
medical residents: It is the combination of working excessively and compulsively that counts.
International Journal of Stress Management, 16(4), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017537
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequen-
ces of workaholism. Human Relations, 50(3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016986307298
Shkoler, O., Rabenu, E., & Tziner, A. (2017). The dimensionality of workaholism and its relations
with internal and external factors. Revista de Psicolog
ıa del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones,
33(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.09.002
Song, K.-W., Choi, W.-S., Jee, H.-J., Yuh, C.-S., Kim, Y.-K., Kim, L., Lee, H.-J., & Cho, C.-H.
(2017). Correlation of occupational stress with depression, anxiety, and sleep in Korean den-
tists: Cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 398–408. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-
017-1568-8
Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11(4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00185
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary
results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa5801_15
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). A new perspective on the etiology of workaholism:
The role of personal and contextual career-related antecedents. Journal of Career Assessment,
24(4), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715616127
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands:
Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Applied Psychology,
54(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00195.x
Thomas, W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and conse-
quences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.424
Trenberth, L., & Dewe, P. (2005). An exploration of the role of leisure in coping with work
related stress using sequential tree analysis. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(1),
101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880412331335885
Tsaur, S., Liang, Y., & Hsu, H. (2012). A multidimensional measurement of work-leisure conflict.
Leisure Sciences, 34(5), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2012.714701
Tsaur, S., & Yen, C. (2018). Work–leisure conflict and its consequences: Do generational
differences matter? Tourism Management, 69, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.
05.011
van Beek, I., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Brenninkmeijer, V. (2013). Heavy work investment:
Its motivational make-up and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(1), 46–62.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2013-0166
van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., Schaufeli, W., & Ouweneel, E. (2013). Rise and shine: Recovery expe-
riences of workaholic and nonworkaholic employees. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(4), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.663527
Winwood, P. C., Bakker, A. B., & Winefield, A. H. (2007). An investigation of the role of non-
work-time behavior in buffering the effects of work strain. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 49(8), 862–871. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318124a8dc
Wong, J., & Lin, J. (2007). The role of job control and job support in adjusting service employ-
ee’s work-to-leisure conflict. Tourism Management, 28(3), 726–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2006.05.003
Yankelevich, M., Broadfoot, A., Gillespie, J. Z., Gillespie, M. A., & Guidroz, A. (2012). General
job stress: A unidimensional measure and its non-linear relations with outcome variables.
Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 28(2),
137–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1413