The study of flow theory during the last forty years inspired at least five models of the flow experience. Moneta (2012) consolidated previous research that employed each of the following models and explained through the use of graphical representations the development of flow theory from its inspiration to the present. A summary of three of these models will provide an understanding of the nature of flow theory and how it has been studied and presented in the literature. The models will include: a) Csikszentmihalyi’s first model, b) the absolute difference regression model, and c) the hypothetical hybrid componential model. The quadrant and octagonal models are worth mentioning as they were designed on the premise of the observation of multiple flow experiences, but will not be the focus in this study. Both of these models represent flow as a function of a balance between skills and challenges and divide z-score results of multiple flow observations into four and eight quadrants respectively representing flow, anxiety, boredom, and apathy (or the addition of worry, arousal, control, and relaxation in the octagonal model).
The First Model: Csikszentmihalyi (1975/2000) observed that experiencing flow is dependent upon the balance between two variables: the skills the participant brings into the action and the degree of challenge the participant meets while in the moment of action. Skill is represented on the x-axis of a Cartesian map while Challenge is represented by the y-axis. Flow occurs when there is adequate skill to meet the challenge. The impact of having an imbalance between skill and challenge is as follows: If the challenge of the activity is beyond skill level, then the participant experiences worry (increased self-consciousness) followed by anxiety. The result is the participant begins to lose the experience of one or more of the components of flow such as a sense of control and falls out of flow. When skills exceed challenges, the participant becomes bored, loses one or more of the component experiences of flow such as becoming acutely aware
of the passage of time (the opposite of “loss of time”), and falls out of flow (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2001, p.90). He might then experience anxiety and try to seek out challenges to regain the flow experience. Maintaining the flow experience as represented by the Cartesian map appears as a diagonal channel that moves from bottom-left of low challenge and low skill to the upper right of high challenge and high skill. In terms of the previously mentioned dichotomy of entropy and negentropy, a stronger degree of flow with greater complexity and order would be movement toward negentropy. Whereas, a lower, less complex degree of flow would be movement toward disorder, or entropy (see Figure 4) (Moneta 2012; Csikszentmihalyi 1975/2000):
Figure 4. Skills-Challenge Balance to determine flow. Reprinted from On the Measurement and Conceptualization of Flow (p.26) by G.B. Moneta in Historical Lines and an Overview of Current Research on Flow, S.Engeser and A. Shipe-Tiska (Ed.), 2012, New York, NY: Springer. Copyright 2012 by Springer. Reprinted with permission.
Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) explored an idea based on Csikszentmihalyi’s previous conclusions regarding the connection between the skills/challenge balance and flow. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) concluded that flow experiences can occur whether the balance of skills to the challenge reflects high skills and high challenge or if the balance reflects medium skills and
medium challenges. This observance generated the question as to if there exists a range of intensity of the flow experience as it would correlate to the intensity of the skills/challenge balance. In other words, does a balance of high skills/high challenge equate to a more intense experience of flow (Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 631)? As a result, the following model was developed with a visual representation (Moneta 2012):
Figure 5: Absolute Difference Regression Model. Reprinted from On the Measurement and Conceptualization of Flow (p.38) by G.B. Moneta in Historical Lines and an Overview of Current Research on Flow, S.Engeser and A. Shipe-Tiska (Ed.), 2012, New York, NY: Springer. Copyright 2012 by Springer. Reprinted with permission.
The Absolute Difference Regression Model shown above utilizes the skills/challenge balance as a foundational starting point for determining the existence of flow as did the previous models. The increase of skills is represented along the x-axis and the increase of challenge is represented along the y-axis. The difference this model represents compared to previous models is that it changes the perception of the nature of the flow experience from a static representation to a dynamic process. This change is manifested through the introduction of the dimension of subjective experience as represented along the z-axis. Subjective experience has many facets and can be defined in many ways. Massimini and Csikszentmihalyi (1987) employed examples of
subjective experiences as part of the development of the previous model. Examples of the subjective experiences identified for the 1987 study included concentration, control, alert, happy, cheerful, strong, friendly, active, sociable, involved, free, excited, open, clear, etc. (p. 547). Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) focused primarily on subjective experience through the lens of concentration, interest in the activity, enjoyment of the activity, or happiness to develop the above absolute difference regression model (Moneta, 2012, p. 39).
The componential model utilizes the nine components of flow as a basis to increase the understanding of the nature of flow. This model, a more psychometrically sound model employed by Marsh and Jackson (1996) and Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999), resulted in the creation of two sets of questionnaires in order to provide insight into flow as a state and flow as a trait. Flow as a state is indicative of observing all of the components of flow as they are occurring approximating their highest state. Flow as a trait is indicative tendency of flow that occurs frequently and intensely over a range of situations. Moneta (2012) explains the componential model to measure each state or trait as an individual component contributing to behavior as a multi- faceted construct and as a single factor construct designed by Jackson and Eklund (2002, 2004) (Moneta, 2012, p. 42). Moneta (2012) suggests a hybrid componential model (shown below) that identifies from the nine flow components antecedents to flow and separates them from facets of flow. He posits that a path exists from concentration to flow that is moderated by goals, feedback and balance. Once in the state of flow, facets of flow emerge to various degrees including control, merging of action, autotelic experience, loss of self-consciousness, and the loss of time (p.44).
Figure 6: Hybrid Componential Model. Adapted from On the Measurement and Conceptualization of Flow (p.44) by
G.B. Moneta in Historical Lines and an Overview of Current Research on Flow, S.Engeser and A. Shipe-Tiska (Ed.), 2012, New York, NY: Springer. Copyright 2012 by Springer. Reprinted with permission.
Moneta (2012) supports the conclusion that this model is the most psychometrically sound with the fact that this method has good construct and content validity and has generated measurement methods for the intensity of flow. All of the models of flow are designed to provide insight to the abstract concept of flow, and each serve to increase the understanding of flow through different lenses (p. 48).