Investigating the “Flow” Experience, Key Conceptual and Operational Issues
Authors: Sami Abuhamdeh
DOI / Source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00158
Date: 13 February 2020
Reading level: Intermediate
Why This Matters for Freedivers
Freedivers love the idea of “flow,” but we often mix it up with simpler things like being focused, calm, or just really engaged. This paper basically says: if we don’t define flow clearly, we can’t train it properly. It helps you separate “I’m locked in and performing well” from the rarer, true “peak flow” experiences—so your mental training becomes more practical and less mystical.
Synopsis
This paper is a thoughtful critique of flow research that asks a blunt question: after decades of studies, why are we still confused about what flow really is?
The author argues that the main problem is inconsistent measurement. Researchers often use the word “flow,” but they don’t measure the same thing. The paper reviews recent flow studies and shows that “flow” has been operationalized in many different ways—so results can’t easily be compared, and the field struggles to build solid knowledge.
Three major inconsistencies are highlighted:
1) Is flow a discrete state or a continuum?
Some studies treat flow like something you’re either in or not in (a special peak state). Others treat flow like a dial (low flow → high flow) that applies to every experience. The author argues that calling everyday low-level engagement “flow” muddies the concept and makes “flow” overlap with simpler constructs like attention or involvement.
2) Is flow inherently enjoyable (autotelic) or not?
Flow was originally described as an “optimal experience” that is deeply rewarding—something you’d do for its own sake. But many studies measure flow without measuring enjoyment at all. The author argues that if enjoyment is removed, the concept shifts into something else (like concentration), and we should stop calling it flow.
3) Are we mixing the conditions of flow with the experience of flow?
A classic flow model includes conditions like clear goals, immediate feedback, and a challenge–skill balance. Many popular flow scales blend these “ingredients” together with the actual experience (absorption, time distortion, loss of self-consciousness, etc.). The author argues this is a big scientific problem: if you mix causes and effects into one score, you can’t test what truly produces flow.
After unpacking where these confusions came from, the author proposes a cleaner approach: reserve “flow” for a discrete, highly enjoyable, optimal state, and treat the more common “pretty engaged and focused” experiences as something else (like task involvement or intrinsic motivation). That keeps flow meaningful, makes research easier to compare, and helps training focus on what you can actually manipulate: goals, feedback, challenge, skills, and attention.
Abstract
Flow has been studied for decades, but progress has been limited partly because researchers often operationalize and measure flow in inconsistent ways. This conceptual analysis reviews recent flow research and shows wide variation in how flow is defined and assessed. The paper highlights three recurring inconsistencies: whether flow is treated as a continuous versus discrete construct, whether enjoyment is included as a core feature, and whether the flow experience is conflated with the conditions proposed to elicit it. The author argues that for clarity and scientific progress, flow should be conceptualized and operationalized as a discrete, highly enjoyable, optimal state of consciousness, clearly separated from its antecedent task conditions, while more ordinary goal-directed engagement is better captured by constructs such as task involvement and intrinsic motivation.