Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29409339›Full record

ReviewJournal of behavioral addictions2018

Ten myths about work addiction.

Mark D Griffiths, Zsolt Demetrovics, Paweł A Atroszko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Work addiction and personality: A meta-analytic study.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark D Griffiths1 Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University , Nottingham, UK.
Zsolt Demetrovics2 Department of Clinical Psychology and Addiction, Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University , Budapest, Hungary.
Paweł A Atroszko3 Department of Psychometrics and Statistics, Institute of Psychology, University of Gdańsk , Gdańsk, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsResearch into work addiction has steadily grown over the past decade. However, the literature is far from unified and there has been much debate on many different issues. AIM AND

methodsThis paper comprises a narrative review and focuses on 10 myths about work addiction that have permeated the psychological literature and beyond. The 10 myths examined are (a) work addiction is a new behavioral addiction, (b) work addiction is similar to other behavioral addictions, (c) there are only psychosocial consequences of work addiction, (d) work addiction and workaholism are the same thing, (e) work addiction exclusively occurs as a consequence of individual personality factors, (f) work addiction only occurs in adulthood, (g) some types of work addiction are positive, (h) work addiction is a transient behavioral pattern related to situational factors, (i) work addiction is a function of the time spent engaging in work, and (j) work addiction is an example of overpathogizing everyday behavior and it will never be classed as a mental disorder in the DSM.

resultsUsing the empirical literature to date, it is demonstrated that there is evidence to counter each of the 10 myths.

conclusionIt appears that the field is far from unified and that there are different theoretical constructs underpinning different strands of research.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveHumansWorkbehavioral addictionstudy addictionwork addictionworkaholismwork engagement

Identifiers

PMID29409339
PMCPMC6376361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.