Understanding Workaholism: A Review of Causes and Counseling Approaches

Is workaholism an addiction or a rewarding work style and life-style that may be harmful to one's family and co-workers? This central question directed the review of definitions and causes of workaholism. Thereafter, the authors discuss the role of “Type A” and obsessive-compulsive traits on the behavior of some workaholics, review the effects of workaholism on workaholics themselves and on others, and suggest counseling approaches that might be helpful to workaholics.     

Data selection and responsible conduct: Was millikan a fraud?

This paper addresses a problem in reporting scientific research. The problem is how to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable data selection. Robert Millikan is notorious for an infamous remark that he used all his data when in fact he had used a selection. On this basis he has been accused of fraud. There is a tension here — historians and his defenders see his selection as understandable and legitimate, while current statements about the Responsible Conduct of Research imply his selection was illegitimate. This paper discusses two main issues that arise in assessing his conduct, whether he was intentionally misleading and whether he actually did mislead the scientific community about some facts of nature. It is argued that he was not intentionally misleading, and that it is unlikely that he misled the scientific community.     

Latent Structure of the Sources of Mathematics Self-Efficacy

General social cognitive theory and its career-specific elaborations posit four primary sources through which self-efficacy beliefs are acquired and modified: personal performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological states and reactions. We present two studies exploring the dimensionality of these sources within the context of career-relevant mathematics activities. In Study 1, 295 college students completed measures of the source variables. Testing two- through five-factor models, we found strongest support for a four-factor latent structure of the efficacy sources. In Study 2, involving 481 high school students, a five-factor model fit the data well. We also found evidence of a higher order factor structure in both samples. Several directions for further research on the sources of efficacy information are considered, along with implications for career and academic interventions.     

Intuitive Perceptions of Decision-making Strategy: Naive Assessors' Concepts of Integrative Complexity

Although there are measurable differences in integrative complexity among solutions that individuals generate in dealing with problems, it is uncertain to what extent people comprehend, recognize, and have preferences among different levels of complexity. Integrative complexity is a function of differentiation (the perception of several attributes within, or perspectives about, a topic) and integration (combining the differentiated characteristics in an interactive or synthesizing solution). The current paper reports two experiments dealing with how university students perceive, interpret, and choose among solutions differing in complexity. Experiment 1 showed that subjects accurately rated the complexity of described solutions differing along the continuum, but that their assessment of their own responses differed from the results of expert scoring. Their self-estimated complexity was highly correlated with their preferences, and preferred complexity was reliably higher than either expert- or self-assessed complexity of subject-generated solutions. Subjects were able to hypothesize quite accurately about environmental and endogenous factors likely to affect complexity. Experiment 2 found that in response to problem scenarios, solutions selected as being potentially most effective were consistently more complex than solutions that participants considered themselves most likely to use. The idea of complexity seems to be intuitively recognizable and understandable by untrained subjects: They can and do distinguish among problem solutions (self-generated or presented) that vary on that dimension, and are able to assess accurately the effects of relevant variables. Such subjects also share the bias shown by experts in favour of the superiority of more complex approaches.