Workaholism is more than working long hours: it involves an internally driven compulsion to work and effort that spills beyond reasonable expectations. A 2023 meta-analysis estimated pooled prevalence at 15.2%, but its results varied sharply by sampling and measurement; among nationally representative studies, the estimate was 8.0%. These figures are not a new 2025 survey or a definitive global count.
What researchers mean by workaholism
Workaholism combines strong internal pressure to work with high effort expenditure. It can involve persistent thoughts about work during personal time and working beyond what is reasonably expected. This definition, summarized in a 2024 review, distinguishes workaholism from simply having a demanding job or putting in many hours. The review also distinguishes it from work engagement, work passion and Type-A behavior. Taris and de Jonge, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2024.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The term has a longer history than the current research measures. The 2023 prevalence review traces it to Wayne Oates’s 1971 book Confessions of a Workaholic, reproducing his definition as “addiction to work, the compulsive and uncontrollable need to work incessantly.” That is a historical definition, not a universally accepted modern diagnostic standard. Andersen et al., Frontiers in Psychology, 2023.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsHow workaholism is measured
One instrument used in research is the Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS), a seven-item self-report measure organized around addiction-related components: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, problems and relapse. Items address patterns such as working longer than intended, neglecting hobbies or exercise, distress when unable to work, and negative effects on health. A scale result is a measurement or screening result; it is not, by itself, a clinical diagnosis.
#1 Best Overall
- Gifts for Therapist : You can send it to psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, school counselors, psychology teachers or graduating psychology students, they will be very surprised when they receive it. Therapist gifts for women, mental health therapist gifts for women, therapist gifts for men, speech therapist gift for women
- Therapy Gifts for Therapist Women : This therapist bookmark is the ideal present for speech pathologists. Ideal for speech pathologist gifts, psychologists gifts, psychology gift, speech language pathologist gifts, therapy gifts, Christmas, birthday gifts, Thanksgiving, anniversary, New Year presents. Therapy bookmark gifts, mental health therapist gifts for men.
- Mental Health Gift Bookmark Size : This bookmark is about 5.12 x 0.39 inches. Our bookmark is made of stainless steel, lightweight and durable, very sturdy and not easy to break, bend or fade. And the carving is clear and bold, small and exquisite, cute and elegant, typical and delicate.
- Psychology Gifts for Women Men : You can put it to your book, bible, Sunday school materials, or any novel! Easy to read. These bookmarks are perfect for marking pages and paragraphs as you leave the book. Great bookmark accessories are perfect for any book and any reader and are sure to deliver a smile to these book lovers.
- Speech Language Pathologist Gifts for Men : This is a lovely gift and it packed in a exquisite velvet bag and it is ready to give! These beautiful bookmark is a useful tool to record your reading progress in order to continue to read for next time, and also is nice decoration to decorate your books, practical and beautiful coexisting.
How common is workaholism?
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis included 53 studies, 71,625 participants and 23 countries, including 10 nationally representative studies. It estimated pooled prevalence at 15.2% (95% confidence interval 12.4%–18.5%). After a trim-and-fill adjustment for possible publication bias, the estimate was 14.1% (95% CI 11.2%–17.6%). Andersen et al., 2023.
The pooled figure should not be read as “15.2% of workers worldwide are workaholics.” The studies differed substantially, with very high heterogeneity (I² 99.1%) and a 95% prediction interval from 3.0% to 51.0%. In sensitivity analyses, the pooled estimate was 9.8% among representative samples and 8.0% among nationally representative studies. Studies using the Dutch Work Addiction Scale reported higher prevalence estimates than those using the BWAS. The authors identify measurement instrument and sampling design as contributors to variation, while noting that much of it remains unexplained.
Rank #2
Why estimates differ
- Sampling: Estimates from convenience samples are not directly interchangeable with those from representative or nationally representative samples.
- Measurement: Different scales and cut-offs can classify different proportions of participants as meeting a measure of workaholism.
- Population and place: Country, occupation and participant characteristics affect what a study describes; the meta-analysis is not a country league table.
- Study date and uncertainty: A prevalence estimate is tied to the studies pooled and their confidence intervals, rather than a timeless or universal rate.
The review included studies written in European languages. Its findings are therefore a synthesis of available studies, not a definitive worldwide census.
Recommended Free Tools
What studies report about health, work and family life
The 2024 review describes workaholism as associated with adverse mental and physical health, lower well-being and difficulties in family life. It also concludes that workaholics do not perform better than other workers and may perform worse. The 2023 prevalence review discusses reported associations with anxiety, burnout, cardiovascular disease, depression, sleep problems, lower life satisfaction and well-being, work-family conflict, partner dissatisfaction, job stress and work-related accidents. These are associations reported across prior research; they do not show that workaholism alone caused each outcome.
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
The 2024 review says proposed interventions have unclear effects. The sources do not establish a proven treatment protocol, so a scale score or these population statistics should not be used to diagnose an individual.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Long-hours statistics are not workaholism statistics
WHO and the International Labour Organization (ILO) assessed health risks associated with exposure to long working hours, not workaholism. Their 2021 publication summarized estimates covering 194 countries from 2000 to 2016. For 2016, it estimated that 479 million people—9% of the global population—worked at least 55 hours per week. The WHO/ILO analysis attributed 745,000 deaths and 23.26 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from ischemic heart disease and stroke to long working hours that year. WHO, 2021 Q&A on WHO/ILO estimates.
In pooled analyses summarized by WHO, people working at least 55 hours weekly had a 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease than those working 35–40 hours a week (339,680 participants across 22 cohort studies). For stroke, the corresponding comparison found a 35% higher risk (162,644 participants across seven studies). These relative-risk estimates concern the specified working-hour threshold and comparison group; they are not prevalence figures for workaholism.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why the distinction matters
Hours alone do not reveal whether someone is compulsively driven to work. People may work long hours because of job demands or economic circumstances without meeting a workaholism measure. Conversely, persistent work preoccupation and difficulty disengaging are not captured by a weekly-hours total. The WHO/ILO figures and the workaholism meta-analysis describe different exposures and should not be combined into one statistic.
Quick Recap
Sources and dates at a glance
| Evidence | What it covers | Date to keep in mind |
|---|---|---|
| Andersen et al., Frontiers in Psychology | Systematic review and meta-analysis of workaholism prevalence; 53 studies and 71,625 participants | Published 2023 |
| Taris and de Jonge, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior | Broad review of workaholism research, distinctions and outcomes | Published 2024 |
| WHO summary of WHO/ILO estimates | Health burden associated with working at least 55 hours per week | Published 2021; burden estimates refer to 2016 |
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
