Research on psychological flow is well established, although criticisms remain regarding conceptual and measurement issues associated with the construct. This scoping review maps flow-related research across scientific disciplines, examining the conceptualization, measurement instruments, and outcomes of flow between 2012 and 2019. Across 236 sources that met the review criteria, 108 different flowrelated constructs were measured by 141 instruments, and 84 possible antecedents were identified. Despite the varied approaches, a common set of overarching antecedent constructs included "optimal challenge" and "high motivation," and recurring characteristics of the flow experience itself included "absorption," "effort-less control," and "intrinsic reward." Applied studies-albeit inconsistent in approach and largely correlational in nature-predominantly linked flow to "positive development" (i.e., well-being and health), "high functioning," and "further engagement." We contextualize the findings of the review relative to important work on flow that has recently emerged (following the review period)in doing so, we hope this review offers a contemporary framework that can be used for the study of flow across scientific disciplines. Public Significance StatementThis review scopes flow research across all scientific disciplines and identifies key commonalities and differences in how researchers have conceptualized the psychological state of flow-an optimal experience often referred to as being "in the zone." It addresses inconsistencies and concerns of practical application that characterize some contemporary flow-related models and studies. This review also provides a framework--derived from the findings of the review--for the study of flow antecedents and experiential dimensions.

Despite there being an increasing number of applied flow studies across scientific disciplines, there exists no consistent or broadly applicable intervention to promote flow experiences. This study provides a detailed account of a new educational flow training program developed following recent advancements in the flow literature that have provided a more parsimonious understanding of flow experiences and antecedents. Guided by CONSORT guidelines for feasibility trials, we conducted a single-group, non-randomized feasibility trial of an educational flow training program (N = 26). We assessed participant retention, perceptions about and experiences of the program, perceptions about the flow education training, and preliminary assessments of flow as an outcome. Results broadly supported program feasibility, and participants reported positive experiences in, and perceptions of, program components. In terms of preliminary efficacy, we observed evidence of noteworthy change pre-to-post-program in flow (d = 0.84), performance (d = 0.81), competence (d = 0.96), well-being (d = 0.68), intrinsic motivation (d = 0.47), interest (d = 0.72), choice (d = 0.38), stress (d = -1.08), ability to handle stress (d = 0.74), and anxiety (d = − 0.86). These results provide preliminary evidence that it may be possible to ‘train’ flow in line with recent perspectives on a core three-dimensional flow experience (and antecedents). The study has developed a research foundation for flow intervention “curriculum” and quality standards, and for measuring results. It offers a foundation for the implementation of a larger-scale program.

No abstract

In this study, we sought to develop—and provide preliminary validity evidence for scores derived from—a new Psychological Flow Scale (PFS). We propose a parsimonious model of three core dimensions of flow, reflecting the findings from a recent scoping review that synthesised flow research across scientific disciplines. The validation process for the PFS addressed recent conceptual criticisms of flow science regarding construct validity, theoretical compatibility, relational ambiguity, and definitional inconsistency. An initial review and analysis of the many flow measurements that exist found that these instruments either assess one, some, or none of the three core-dimensions of flow; often measuring similar dimensions that may bear resemblance to one of the three-dimensions but differ in dimensional meaning. PFS item development involved a phase of theoretical scrutiny, review of existing instruments, item generation, and expert review of items. Subsequently, 936 participants were recruited for scale development purposes, which included sample testing, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. This factor analytic process showed evidence for three distinguishable dimensions ‘under’ a single general or higher-order factor (i.e., global flow). With respect to external aspects of validity, flow scores correlated positively with perceptions of competence, self-rated performance, autotelic personality, and negatively with anxiety and stress scores. In conclusion, we present preliminary evidence for the theoretical and operational suitability of the PFS to assess the flow state across scientific disciplines and activity domains that be useful for experimental research and enable comparative flow research in the future.