What are the main measurement methods for flow? Is one of these methods bet-
ter overall than the others? If yes, why?
The main measurement methods for flow are the Flow Questionnaire, the Ex- perience Sampling Method, and the standardized scales of the componential approach. The chapter suggests that none of these three main measurement methods is overall superior to the others: each one has pros and cons that trade off depending on the specific question the researcher is tackling (see sub- sections 2.4, 3.6, 4.4, 5.4 and section 6 of this chapter). You may, of course, disagree with this conclusion; but if you do, you should state your rationale. For example, if you believe that construct validity is paramount, then the stand- ardized scales of the componential approach would be the likely winners. Think of one research question about flow and select a measurement method to
test it. What criteria did you use in making your choice?
Once you have listed the criteria, check them against the ‘Overall assessment’ sub-sections 2.4 (Flow Questionnaire), 3.6 (Experience Sampling Method), 4.4 (Componential Approach), and 5.4 (Process Approach) of this chapter and de- termine by yourself if you have made a sensible choice. As a final check, read the first paragraph of section 5 of this chapter and determine by yourself if your research question would require a modification or adaptation of the measure- ment method you have chosen.
What are the main strengths and main limitations of the Flow Questionnaire? On one hand, the Flow Questionnaire is a good measurement method for as- sessing the prevalence of flow, that is, whether participants sampled from a population (e.g. students or workers) have ever experienced flow in their lives. This is because the Flow Questionnaire proposes a description of flow and asks respondents to freely report whether or not they had similar experiences. As such, it does not “impose” flow on respondents and does not lead to inflated prevalence rates (see section 2.3 of this chapter). For this reason, the Flow Questionnaire can be validly used to compare the prevalence rates of different
populations, such as Chinese versus British college students or white-collar versus blue-collar workers.
On the other hand, the Flow Questionnaire is a limited measurement method for investigating the effects of challenges and skills on subjective experience, and the intensity of flow in general and in specific endeavors (e.g. work and leisure). This is because the scaled items of section 5 of the Flow Questionnaire refer to the experience while doing the best flow-conducive activity, but do not refer specifically to those instances in which a respondent experiences flow while doing that activity (see section 2.3 of this chapter). However, these limi- tations could be overcome by modifying the Flow Questionnaire (see the first paragraph of section 6 of this chapter).
What are the main strengths and main limitations of the Experience Sampling
Method?
On one hand, the Experience Sampling Method is a good measurement method for studying the flow state in daily life and for testing hypotheses concerning the effects that perceived challenges from the activity, perceived skills in the activity, and the balance of the two perceptions have on the occurrence of flow while engaged in the activity. This is because the Experience Sampling Method gathers repeated measures of subjective experience at random times while par- ticipants are engaged in daily activities, minimizing memory bias. For this rea- son, the Experience Sampling Method can be validly used to test and compare alternative models of how various situational factors (e.g. type and context of activity or levels of challenges and skills and their balance) and various person- al factors (e.g. personality traits, culture, gender, or occupation) conjointly in- fluence the quality of daily experience, including intensity of the flow state (see section 3 of this chapter).
On the other hand, the Experience Sampling Method is a limited method for studying prevalence of flow. This is because it somehow “imposes” flow on re- spondents, as opposed to asking them explicitly to report whether or not they experienced flow at the time they were beeped. Moreover, the Experience Sampling Method uses scales for measuring flow intensity that lack content va- lidity and have unknown construct validity. As such, it does not provide a sound measure of the construct of flow intensity. However, these limitations could be overcome by modifying the Experience Sampling Method (see the first paragraph of section 6 of this chapter).
What are the main strengths and main limitations of the componential ap-
proach?
On one hand, the componential approach has generated methods for measuring intensity of flow that have good content and construct validity, and hence are the most psychometrically sound among the available measurement methods.
On the other hand, the componential approach is not good for assessing preva- lence of flow because it “imposes” flow on respondents and hence leads to in- flated prevalence rates. Moreover, the componential approach, as implemented in the FSS-2 and DFS-2, does not distinguish antecedents and facets of flow (see next study question) and has too simple a structure to account for the com- plexity of the relationships between antecedents of flow and flow itself. Yet, these limitations could be overcome in future developments of the componen- tial scales (see section 4.3 of this chapter).
What is the key difference between ‘antecedents’ of flow and ‘components’ or
‘facets’ of flow?
Antecedents of flow are internal states and perceptions that precede and foster the flow state, but are not themselves expressions of flow. These include, for example, clarity of goals, unambiguous feedback, and perceptions of challenge and skill in carrying out an activity. These factors are theorized to have a causal impact on flow by either increasing the likelihood that flow occurs or by aug- menting the intensity of flow.
Components or facets of flow are internal states and perceptions that represent expressions of flow. These include, for example, merging of action and aware- ness and loss of time-awareness or time acceleration when carrying out an ac- tivity. These factors are theorized to be caused by flow (see section 4.3 of this chapter).
How many models of flow have been proposed to date and in which way(s) they
differ from each other?
Many models of flow have been proposed to date. The sub-set of models pre- sented in this chapter includes the first model of the flow state (see Figure 1), the quadrant model and experience fluctuation models (see Figures 3 and 4), the cross-product and absolute-difference regression models (see Figure 5), the nine-factor componential model (see Figure 6), the one-factor componential model (see Figure 7), and the cusp catastrophe model (Figure 8).
These seven models can be grouped into pairs of similar models. For example, let’s consider three pairs. The first model of the flow state and the absolute- difference regression model are similar, except for the latter is defined by a mathematical model and can be tested using regression analysis (Pair A). The quadrant model and the experience fluctuation model are similar, except for the latter is more detailed (Pair B). The one-factor componential model and the nine-factor componential model are similar, except for the former represents flow as a single construct whereas the latter represents flow as nine interrelated constructs (Pair C).
occurrence of flow as a function of challenge and skill, whereas Pair C of mod- els measures intensity of flow without explaining the causal factors underlying it. Finally, Pair A and Pair B of models differ in that the latter assumes that flow is more likely to occur when challenge and skill exceed a person’s weekly average and do not operationalize – and hence allow testing – the construct of balance of challenge and skill.
How is the flow state represented in the various models of flow that have been
proposed?
For example, with reference to the previous question and answer, Pair A of models represent flow as a state that is more likely to occur when there is a bal- ance of challenge and skill, and it is more intense as the sum of challenge and skill grows. Pair B of models represents flow as a state that is more likely to occur when both challenge and skill exceed a person’s weekly average. Finally, Pair C of models represents flow as either a single construct with nine facets (see Figure 7) or as a nine-faceted construct (see Figure 6).
Compare the original flow model with the quadrant model, pointing out simi-
larities and differences.
The most noticeable difference between the quadrant model (see Figure 3(a)) and the first model of the flow state (see Figure 1(a)) is that the former includes the ‘apathy’ state, which is posited to be the least positive state. Therefore, the claim made by the first flow model that flow occurs when challenges and skills are in relative balance with each other independently of their level is modified by the quadrant model as follows: in order to achieve flow two conditions need to be satisfied: (a) there is balance between challenges and skills, and (b) both challenges and skills are greater than their weakly average.
Compare the quadrant model and the experience fluctuation model with the ab-
solute difference regression model, pointing out similarities and differences.
Similarities. The quadrant model and the experience fluctuation model are
similar to the absolute difference regression model in that they all explain the occurrence of flow as a function of challenge and skill (see Figures 3 and 5(c)).
Differences. The quadrant model and the experience fluctuation model are clas-
sification systems, in which subjective experience is grouped into distinct states (see Figures 3) as a function of levels of perceived challenge from an activity and perceived skill in conducting an activity. As such, these models assume that the balance of challenge and skill fosters flow, but do not allow testing this assumption. Moreover, these models assume that flow occurs only when chal- lenge and skill levels exceed their weekly average, which is somewhat ques- tionable on theoretical and empirical ground (see section 3.3 of this chapter and chapter 3) and in contradiction with the first model of the flow state (see Figure
1(a)).
The absolute difference regression model represents flow as a state that is more likely to occur when there is a balance of challenge and skill, and it is more in- tense as the sum of challenge and skill grows. This model assumes that the bal- ance of challenge and skill fosters flow, and allows testing this assumption con- trolling for the effects that challenge and skill have on flow independently of each other. Moreover, this model does not assume that flow occurs only when challenge and skill levels exceed their weekly average, and in that it is con- sistent with the first model of the flow state (see Figure 1(a)).
References
Asakawa, K. (2004). Flow experience and autotelic personality in Japanese col- lege students: How do they experience challenges in daily life? Journal
of Happiness Studies, 5, 123-154.
Atkinson, J. W (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psycho-
logical Review, 64, 359-372.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The Work-Related Flow Inventory: Construction and initial validation of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400-414. Baumann, N., Lürig, C., & Engeser, S. (2016). Flow and enjoyment beyond skill-
demand balance: The role of game pacing curves and personality. Moti-
vation and Emotion, 40(4), 507-519.
Beer, N., & Moneta, G. B. (2010). Construct and concurrent validity of the Posi- tive Metacognitions and Positive Meta-Emotions Questionnaire. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 49, 977-982.
Bledow, R., Rosing, K. & Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 432–450.
Bricteux, C., Navarro, J. & Ceja, L. (2016). Interest as a moderator in the relation- ship between challenge/skills balance and flow at work: An analysis at within-individual level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 861-880. Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications
and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Carli, M., Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). The quality of experience in the flow channels: Comparison of Italian and U.S. students. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, and I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-306). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ceja, L., & Navarro , J. (2009). Dynamics of Flow: A Nonlinear Perspective.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Char- acterizing within-individual variability using a complexity science ap- proach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32 , 627-651.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2012). ‘Suddenly I get into the zone’: Examining discon- tinuities and nonlinear changes in flow experiences at work. Human Re-
lations, 65, 1101-1127.
Conti, R. (2001). Time flies: Investigating the connection between intrinsic moti- vation and the experience of time. Journal of Personality, 69, 1-26. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975/2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing
flow in work and play (1st/2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Attention and the holistic approach to behavior. In K.S. Pope and J.L. Singer (Eds.). The stream of consciousness (pp. 335- 356). New York: Plenum Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with
everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery
and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598-608). New York: Guilford.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent activity and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 281-294.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R.W. (1984). Being adolescent. New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987) Validity and reliability of the experi- ence-sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526-536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). Optimal experience: Psy-
chological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and lei- sure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815-822. Davis, G. A. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2000). The quality of experience in adolescents’
daily life: Developmental perspectives. Genetic, Social, and General
Psychology Monographs, 126, 347-367.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2004). The cross-cultural investigation of opti- mal experience. Ricerche di Psicologia, 1, 79-102.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy: Developmental and psychosocial implications. European
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow experiences at work: For high need achievers alone?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 755–775.
Ellis, G. D., Voelkl, J. E., & Morris, C. (1994). Measurements and analysis issues with explanation of variance in daily experience using the Flow model.
Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 337–356.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, moderators of challenge-skill-balance and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158-172.
Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the
world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439-485 . Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Fu, F. L., Su R. C., & Yu, S. C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’
enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education, 52, 101–112. Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2013). Work-related flow. In A. B. Bakker & K.
Daniels (Eds.), A day in the life of a happy worker (pp. 41–57). New York: Psychology Press.
Ghani, J., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human-computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology,
128, 381-391.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). From problem solving to problem finding. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 90–116). Chicago: Aldine.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal
study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.
Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. New York: Halsted.
Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to
optimal experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 24, 133–150.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The Flow Scale Manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Haworth, J., & Evans, S. (1995). Challenge, skill and positive subjective states in the daily life of a sample of YTS students. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 68, 109-121.
Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience Sampling
Method. Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Heutte, J., Fenouillet, F., Boniwell, I., Martin-Krumm, C., Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2014). Optimal learning experience in digital environments: Theoretical concepts, measure and modelisation. Symposium Digital Learning in
21st Century Universities, Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia
Tech), Atlanta, GA.
Heutte, J., Fenouillet, F., Boniwell, I., Martin-Krumm, C., Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2016a). The EduFlow model: A contribution toward the study of optimal learning environments. In L. Harmat, F. Ørsted Andersen, F. Ullén, F., J. Wright, & G. Sadlo (Eds.), The flow experience: Empirical research and applications (pp. 105-123). New York: Springer.
Heutte, J., Fenouillet, F., Boniwell, I., Martin-Krumm, C., Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2016b). Proposal for a conceptual evolution of the flow in educa- tion (EduFlow) model. European Conference on Positive Psychology
(ECPP), Angers, France.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 23–34.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N. & Stone, A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776-1780.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 196-209.
Larson, R., & Delespaul, P.A.E.G. (1992). Analysing experience sampling data: A guidebook for the perplexed. In M. deVries (Ed.), The experience of
psychopathology: Investigating mental disorders in their natural settings
(pp. 58-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kawabata, M., Mallett, C. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2: Examination of factorial validity and reliability for Japanese adults. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 465– 485.
Maslow, A. (1964). Religions, values and peak-experiences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experience: a tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Diseases,175, 545-549.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily ex- perience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi and I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.). Op-
timal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-287). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, A., Yiend, J., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004). Individual differences in the modulation of fear-related brain activation by attentional control. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1683-1694.
Moneta, G.B. (1990). A modeling approach to the study of subjective experience:
everyday life variations as a function of perceived challenges and skills in the activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Moneta, G. B. (2004a). The flow experience across cultures. Journal of Happiness
Moneta, G. B. (2004b). The flow model of state intrinsic motivation in Chinese: Cultural and personal moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 181- 217.
Moneta, G. B. (2010). Flow in work as a function of trait intrinsic motivation, op- portunity for creativity in the job, and work engagement. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), The Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, re-
search and practice (pp. 262-269). Edward-Elgar Publishing House.
Moneta, G. B. (2012). Opportunity for creativity in the job as a moderator of the relation between trait intrinsic motivation and flow in work. Motivation
and Emotion, 36, 491–503.
Moneta, G. B. (2017). Validation of the Short Flow in Work Scale (SFWS). Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 109, 83–88.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality,
64, 275-310.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M (1999). Models of concentration in natural environments: A comparative approach based on streams of experiential data. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 603-637.
Mosing, M. A., Magnusson, P. K. E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J., Madison, G., & Ullén, F. (2012). Heritability of proneness for psychological flow experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 699–704. Navarro, J., & Ceja, L. (2011). Dinámicas complejas en el flujo: Diferencias entre
trabajo y no trabajo [Complex dynamics of flow: Differences between work and non-work activities]. Revista de Psicología Social, 26, 443- 456.
Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, & Yung, Y.F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach.
Marketing Science, 19, 22-44.
Palermo, G., & Moneta, G. B. (2016). Cognitive processes underlying creativity at work. In G. B. Moneta & J. Rogaten (Eds.), Psychology of creativity:
Cognitive, emotional, and social processes (pp. 21–48). New York: Nova
Science.
Pfister, R. (2002). Flow im Alltag: Untersuchungen zum Quadrantenmodell des
Flow-Erlebens und zum Konzept der autotelischen Perso ¨nlichkeit mit der Experience Sampling Method (ESM) [Flow in everyday life: Studies