Investigating the "Flow" Experience: Key Conceptual and Operational Issues.

Sami Abuhamdeh

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00158

Abstract

The “flow” experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) has been the focus of a large body of empirical work spanning more than four decades. Nevertheless, advancement in understanding – beyond what Csikszentmihalyi uncovered during his initial breakthrough in 1975 – has been modest. In this conceptual analysis, it is argued that progress within the field has been impeded by a lack of consistency in how flow is operationalized, and that this inconsistency in part reflects an underlying confusion regarding what flow is. Flow operationalizations from papers published within the past 5 years are reviewed. Across the 42 reviewed studies, flow was operationalized in 24 distinct ways. Three specific points of inconsistency are then highlighted: (1) inconsistences in operationalizing flow as a continuous versus discrete construct, (2) inconsistencies in operationalizing flow as inherently enjoyable (i.e., “autotelic”) or not, and (3) inconsistencies in operationalizing flow as dependent on versus distinct from the task characteristics proposed to elicit it (i.e., the conditions/antecedents). After tracing the origins of these discrepancies, the author argues that, in the interest of conceptual intelligibility, flow should be conceptualized and operationalized exclusively as a discrete, highly enjoyable, “optimal” state of consciousness, and that this state should be clearly distinguished from the conditions proposed to elicit it. He suggests that more mundane instances of goal-directed engagement are better conceived and operationalized as variations in task involvement rather than variations in flow. Additional ways to achieve greater conceptual and operational consistency within the field are suggested.

Highlights

I argue that flow should be conceptualized and operationalized exclusively as a state of optimal experience – that is, as a discrete, highly rewarding state of consciousness – and that the potential for progress in our understanding of flow largely depends on it
Participants are presented with first-hand accounts of what it feels like to be in flow, and are asked a series of questions including “Have you ever felt similar experiences?” and “If yes, what activities where you engaged in when you had such experiences?” the Flow Questionnaire operationalizes flow as a discrete construct
Hundreds of empirical studies have been conducted in an attempt to further understand flow

Summary

Sami Abuhamdeh*

Reviewed by: Guillaume Chanel, Université de Genève, Switzerland Fernando Rosas, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. After tracing the origins of these discrepancies, the author argues that, in the interest of conceptual intelligibility, flow should be conceptualized and operationalized exclusively as a discrete, highly enjoyable, “optimal” state of consciousness, and that this state should be clearly distinguished from the conditions proposed to elicit it. Perhaps most alarming, after almost 42 years of research, there appears to be significant disagreement among researchers regarding what flow is and how to measure it This last point can best be appreciated by first reviewing the many different ways in which flow has been operationalized in the literature. I argue that flow should be conceptualized and operationalized exclusively as a state of optimal experience – that is, as a discrete, highly rewarding state of consciousness – and that the potential for progress in our understanding of flow largely depends on it

THE THREE ISSUES

Ps presented with description of flow

Low Low

TWO REMAINING QUESTIONS

Findings

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION