{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041396103896103896, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016233766233766235, 'mean_word_length': 5.8121546961325965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The relationship between strong motivation to work, “workaholism”, and health

The aims of the present study were to examine (1) psychometric properties of Spence and Robbins’ measures of the components of workaholism and (2) relations between workaholism and health-related outcomes [job stress, burnout, work engagement, and subjective health complaints (SHC)]. Two hundred and thirty-five bank employees completed questionnaires measuring workaholism, job stress, burnout, work engagement, and SHC. Factor analyses suggested a two-factor model of workaholism, “Drive” and “Enjoyment of Work”. There were significant relations between workaholism subscales and SHC, job stress, burnout, and work engagement. The “Drive” subscale correlated positively with job stress and SHC, and marginally with burnout and work engagement. The “Enjoyment of Work” subscale correlated negatively with job stress, burnout, and SHC. The results showed that a two-factor model of workaholism provided the best fit for Norwegian data, supported a differentiation of enthusiastic and nonenthusiastic workaholic features, and were related in predictable ways to SHC, burnout, and work engagement, as predicted from contemporary cognitive stress theory.