On the Measurement and Conceptualization of Flow

  • Giovanni B. MonetaEmail author


This chapter introduces in chronological order the three main measurement methods–the flow questionnaire, the experience sampling method, and the standardized scales of the componential approach–that researchers developed and used in conducting research on the flow state. Each measurement method and underlying conceptualization is explained, and its strengths and limitations are then discussed in relation to the other measurement methods and associated conceptualizations. The analysis reveals that, although the concept of flow remained stable since its inception, the models of flow that researchers developed in conjunction with the measurement methods changed substantially over time. Moreover, the findings obtained by applying the various measurement methods led to corroborations and disconfirmations of the underlying models and hence provided indications on how to interpret and possibly modify flow theory. The final section outlines new directions for developing more valid and useful measurement methods that can help to advance the understanding of flow, its antecedents, and its consequences.


Subjective Experience Quadrant Model Flow Theory Experience Sampling Method Componential Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Asakawa, K. (2004). Flow experience and autotelic personality in Japanese college students: How do they experience challenges in daily life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beer, N., & Moneta, G. B. (2010). Construct and concurrent validity of the positive metacognitions and positive meta-emotions questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 977–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. 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 & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conti, R. (2001). Time flies: Investigating the connection between intrinsic motivation and the experience of time. Journal of Personality, 69, 1–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Attention and the holistic approach to behavior. In K. S. Pope & J. L. Singer (Eds.), The stream of consciousness (pp. 335–356). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, I., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988a). Introduction to part III. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 183–192). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988b). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. W. (1984). Being adolescent. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the Experience Sampling Method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 529–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent activity and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2004). The cross-cultural investigation of optimal experience. Ricerche di Psicologia, 1, 79–102.Google Scholar
  21. Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy: Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, moderators of challenge-skill-balance and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. New York: Halsted.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method. Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004a). Relationships between quality of experience and participation in diverse performance settings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56(Suppl), 193.Google Scholar
  32. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Experience Psychology, 18, 17–35.Google Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson, R., & Delespaul, P. A. E. G. (1992). Analysing experience sampling data: A guidebook for the perplexed. In M. de Vries (Ed.), The experience of psychopathology: Investigating mental disorders in their natural settings (pp. 58–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maslow, A. (1964). Religions, values and peak-experiences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266–287). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Moneta, G. B. (2004a). The flow experience across cultures. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moneta, G. B. (2004b). The flow model of state intrinsic motivation in Chinese: Cultural and personal moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moneta, G. B. (2010). Flow in work as a function of trait intrinsic motivation, opportunity for creativity in the job, and work engagement. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), The Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 262–269). Cheltenham: Edward-Elgar Publishing House.Google Scholar
  45. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 on the quadrant model of flow experiencing and on the concept of the autotelic personality with the experience sampling method (ESM)]. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  48. Privette, G. (1983a). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: A comparative analysis of positive human experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1361–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Privette, G. (1983b). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: A comparative analysis of positive human experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1361–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rheinberg, F., Manig, Y., Kliegl, R., Engeser, S., & Vollmeyer, R. (2007). Flow bei der Arbeit, doch Glück in der Freizeit. Zielausrichtung, Flow und Glücksgefühle [Flow during work but happiness during leisure time: Goals, flow-experience, and happiness]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51, 105–115.Google Scholar
  51. Schüler, J. (2010). Achievement incentives determine the effects of achievement-motive incongruence on flow experience. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyLondon Metropolitan UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations