27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Beyond the myths about work addiction: Toward a consensus on definition and trajectories for future studies on problematic overworking : A response to the commentaries on: Ten myths about work addiction (Griffiths et al., 2018)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In an unprecedented collaborative effort to integrate the existing knowledge on work addiction and delineate trajectories for future studies, several papers from work addiction researchers (including some of the most prolific experts in the field) have contributed to the debate on the misconceptions/myths about this problematic behavior. On the basis of the overview of the presented arguments, the most commonly proposed recommendations were that there should be: (a) a general definition of work addiction, (b) the need for more transdisciplinary and integrative approach to research, and (c) propositions regarding more high-quality research. These three aspects are summarized in the present paper. There is a general agreement among work addiction researchers that work addiction is a problematic behavior that merits more systematic studies, which require input and expertise from a wide range of fields due to its complex nature.

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Introduction to behavioral addictions.

            Several behaviors, besides psychoactive substance ingestion, produce short-term reward that may engender persistent behavior, despite knowledge of adverse consequences, i.e., diminished control over the behavior. These disorders have historically been conceptualized in several ways. One view posits these disorders as lying along an impulsive-compulsive spectrum, with some classified as impulse control disorders. An alternate, but not mutually exclusive, conceptualization considers the disorders as non-substance or "behavioral" addictions. Inform the discussion on the relationship between psychoactive substance and behavioral addictions. We review data illustrating similarities and differences between impulse control disorders or behavioral addictions and substance addictions. This topic is particularly relevant to the optimal classification of these disorders in the forthcoming fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). Growing evidence suggests that behavioral addictions resemble substance addictions in many domains, including natural history, phenomenology, tolerance, comorbidity, overlapping genetic contribution, neurobiological mechanisms, and response to treatment, supporting the DSM-V Task Force proposed new category of Addiction and Related Disorders encompassing both substance use disorders and non-substance addictions. Current data suggest that this combined category may be appropriate for pathological gambling and a few other better studied behavioral addictions, e.g., Internet addiction. There is currently insufficient data to justify any classification of other proposed behavioral addictions. Proper categorization of behavioral addictions or impulse control disorders has substantial implications for the development of improved prevention and treatment strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours?

              Following the recent changes to the diagnostic category for addictive disorders in DSM-5, it is urgent to clarify what constitutes behavioural addiction to have a clear direction for future research and classification. However, in the years following the release of DSM-5, an expanding body of research has increasingly classified engagement in a wide range of common behaviours and leisure activities as possible behavioural addiction. If this expansion does not end, both the relevance and the credibility of the field of addictive disorders might be questioned, which may prompt a dismissive appraisal of the new DSM-5 subcategory for behavioural addiction. We propose an operational definition of behavioural addiction together with a number of exclusion criteria, to avoid pathologizing common behaviours and provide a common ground for further research. The definition and its exclusion criteria are clarified and justified by illustrating how these address a number of theoretical and methodological shortcomings that result from existing conceptualizations. We invite other researchers to extend our definition under an Open Science Foundation framework.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Behav Addict
                J Behav Addict
                jba
                JBA
                Journal of Behavioral Addictions
                Akadémiai Kiadó (Budapest )
                2062-5871
                2063-5303
                28 March 2019
                March 2019
                : 8
                : 1
                : 7-15
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychometrics and Statistics, Institute of Psychology, University of Gdańsk , Gdańsk, Poland
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Psychology and Addiction, Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University , Budapest, Hungary
                [3 ]Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University , Nottingham, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: Asst. Prof. Paweł A. Atroszko; Department of Psychometrics and Statistics, Institute of Psychology, University of Gdańsk, Bazynskiego 4, 80-952, Gdańsk, Poland; Phone: +48 58 523 43 22; E-mail: p.atroszko@ 123456ug.edu.pl
                Article
                10.1556/2006.8.2019.11
                7044606
                30920291
                50b0f401-d3e5-4a84-b44b-8a74803ebe35
                © 2019 The Author(s)

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes, provided the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC License is provided, and changes – if any – are indicated.

                History
                : 20 February 2019
                : 25 February 2019
                : 26 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 91, Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funding sources: This study was supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (grant numbers: K111938 and KKP126835).
                Categories
                Response

                workaholism,work addiction,problematic overworking,problematic work,behavioral addiction

                Comments

                Comment on this article