Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(4), 465–470, 2014

Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2014.891524

The Dispositional Flow Scale–2 as a Measure of Autotelic

Personality: An Examination of Criterion-Related Validity
JARROD A. JOHNSON,1 HEIDI N. KEISER,2 EVAN M. SKARIN,3 AND SCOTT R. ROSS2,4
1
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University
2
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota–Twin Cities
3
The Guildhall, Southern Methodist University
4
Department of Psychology, DePauw University

The Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (DFS–2; Jackson & Eklund, 2002) may be one of the most promising measures for assessing Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1990) construct of “autotelic personality.” Despite strong internal validity, external validity of the DFS–2 remains open. We used 2 methods
to provide evidence for external validity: (1) multiple-time assessments of experience sampling (1,856 entries generated over 7 days) to derive
aggregate indices of criterion validity; and (2) single-time assessments of flow and personality for additional criterion-related validity. For single-time
assessments of flow, we used a modified version of the Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). To assess personality, we included
a measure of the Five-factor traits using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). A path model of NEO domains, DFS–2
global scores, and experience sampling aggregates fit the data well.

Flow is an experiential state that is intrinsically rewarding and
defined by total immersion and enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990). Csikszentmihalyi (1975) coined the term flow to describe
observations of optimal human experience across multiple tasks
and activities. Studies at least partially support a key assumption
that a balance of challenge and skill level gives rise to flow at
the state level (Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008; Keller, Ringelham,
& Blomann, 2011). The flow experience has been variously de-
scribed, but common descriptions include a merging of action
and awareness, lack of self-consciousness, intense concentra-
tion, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, a sense of control,
a distorted sense of time, and a desire to repeat the experi-
ence (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). The relative balance of
challenge and skill level is often used to index flow using an
experience sampling method (ESM) wherein individuals report
their experience in real time. Due in part to the limitations of
retrospective self-report, complications of having participants
self-assess for abstruse experiences (Fiske, 1971), and the abil-
ity of the ESM to identify the contingencies of behavior (e.g.,
Scollon, Kim-Prieto, & Diener, 2003), the ESM has become
the standard in flow assessment. However, the difficulty of ob-
taining ESM data has prompted the use of single-time mea-
surements of flow propensity with varying levels of content
validity. A recently derived measure of flow propensity, the
Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (DFS–2; Jackson & Eklund, 2002)
possesses strong content validity by including nine subscales,
each of which assesses a major component of flow. Previous
studies examining the psychometric properties of the DFS–2
have focused mostly on the internal validity. In this study, we
take a closer look at the external validity (criterion-related and
Received October 1, 2012; Revised January 22, 2014.
Editor’s Note: This manuscript was accepted under the Editorship of
Gregory Meyer.
Address correspondence to Scott R. Ross, Department of Psychology,
DePauw University, 7 Larabee Street, Greencastle, IN 46135; Email: srross@
depauw.edu
465
convergent) and examine the relationship of the DFS–2 to the
Five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits (Costa & McCrae,
1992).
AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY
Investigations of flow have led to the concept of an autotelic
personality, roughly defined as the tendency to engage in an ac-
tivity “for its own sake” (i.e., intrinsic motivation; Csikszentmi-
halyi, 1975, 1990). Autotelic personality can be operationalized
in the context of the ESM in two ways: frequency of experienc-
ing flow (e.g., Asakawa, 2004) and quality of the flow experience
(e.g., Carli, Fave, & Massimini, 1988). In this investigation, we
view autotelic personality as a constellation of traits that repre-
sent an increased propensity to experience flow across different
situations. The investigation of autotelic personality provides a
fresh take on flow research and a fruitful avenue for future re-
search endeavors, as most studies to date have focused on flow
propensity within the context of a chosen “high-flow” activ-
ity (e.g., music, sports, arts, etc.). Consistent with trait theory,
we conceptualize autotelic personality as the tip of a spectrum
propensity for experiencing flow across a wide range of ac-
tivities and not simply specific situational contexts—in short,
cross-situational consistency. An established measure of flow
propensity would aid researchers in exploring the correlates
of autotelic personality and establishing the construct within a
larger nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) while
allowing them to avoid the tangled logistics of ESM research.
DISPOSITIONAL MEASURES OF FLOW
To date, few dispositional measures of flow propensity have
been put forth in the literature. Csikszentmihalyi and Larson
(1984) were the first in developing the Flow Questionnaire
(FQ), a measure used for assessing individual differences in
flow propensity via semistructured interviews. The FQ assesses
several major components of flow, but it lacks content validity
in capturing the entire phenomological flow experience. The
Flow State Scale (FSS; Jackson & Marsh, 1996) is a state
466
measure of flow with highly similar item content to the DFS–2
in which individuals respond to their experience in the activity
in which they have just participated. The DFS–2 (Jackson &
Eklund, 2002) is a dispositional (or “trait”) measure of flow that
assesses how respondents generally feel when taking part in a
given activity. Both measures possess much stronger content
and construct validity than the FQ as they assess all nine
of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975, 1990) major flow components.
Despite the comprehensiveness of both the FSS and the DFS–2,
few studies have examined the ability of these instruments to
function as indicators of autotelic personality. The DFS–2’s
strong psychometric properties of internal consistency, content
validity (i.e., construct representativeness), and factorial
validity, in addition to its dispositional focus, make it a prime
candidate for a single-time measure of flow propensity. Al-
though the DFS–2 instructions refer to dispositional tendencies
within the context of a particular domain (e.g., music, sports,
arts, etc.), they could easily be tailored so that the items assess
general dispositional tendencies (i.e., life). Previous studies
have shown that the “flow condition” can cut across any partic-
ular activity (Massimini & Carli, 1988). By targeting responses
to general life activities, the DFS–2 can assess cross-situational
consistency and provide a putative measure of flow propensity.
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY OF THE DFS–2
Despite valuable studies supporting the internal validity of the
DFS–2 (Jackson & Eklund, 2002; Jackson, Martin, & Eklund,
2008), the criterion-related validity of the DFS–2 remains open,
with convergent validity restricted to examinations of interre-
lationships among DFS–2 subscales (see Wang, Liu, & Khoo,
2009). Both behavioral criteria (e.g., ability to predict frequency
of flow experiences) and characterological criteria (e.g., rela-
tionships with known personality constructs) are needed for
establishing the DFS–2 as a measure of autotelic personality.
The ESM provides the best avenue for behavioral criterion
validation of the DFS–2. If the DFS–2 reflects greater flow
propensity, then higher scores should be associated with more
time spent in flow. The well-established domains of the FFM of
personality provide appropriate characterological criteria and an
established nomological network in which to identify the trait
constituents of autotelic personality. An autotelic personality
theoretically represents a specific constellation of personality
traits; if the DFS–2 assesses autotelic personality in terms of
flow propensity, then DFS–2 scores should bear specific, pre-
dictable relationships with FFM domains. Of these, Neuroti-
cism, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness should
be particularly relevant to autotelic personality. Individuals low
in Neuroticism should be free of distraction and have reduced
self-consciousness. Those high in Conscientiousness should be
more cognizant of their goals and more capable of directing their
activities toward achieving those goals in an efficient manner,
with increased concentration, control, and motivation. Aspects
of Extraversion, including energy and activity, might propel in-
dividuals into tasks that they find enjoyable, increasing task
engagement and desire to repeat the experience. Openness to
Experience could underlie greater absorption or immersion in
activities. Recently, Ullén et al. (2012) found partial support for
these predictions, where Neuroticism and Conscientiousness ac-
counted for 22% of the variance in a newly developed Swedish
measure of flow in everyday life activities. Additionally, Ross
and Keiser (2014) found that Revised NEO Personality Inven-
tory (NEO PI–R) domains of Neuroticism and Conscientious-
JOHNSON, KEISER, SKARIN, ROSS
ness, as well as Extraversion and Agreeableness accounted for
at least 38% of the variance in DFS–2 global scores and over
50% in a multivariate factor reflecting the DFS–2 components
aimed at general life activities.
THIS STUDY
This study advances the literature by examining the DFS–2’s
potential as a measure of autotelic personality. Convergent
validity was assessed via the FQ in dichotomous and Likert-
scaled formats. Criterion-related validity was assessed using the
ESM as an aggregate behavioral criterion of flow propensity.
In addition, we examined all flow indexes in relation to the
FFM domains to provide further criterion-related validity. To
our knowledge, no previous study has attempted to predict flow
experiences (e.g., ESM sampling) using a dispositional flow
measure. Until recently, previous studies had not examined
flow within the context of the FFM. Employing the FFM in
flow research should help to elucidate the construct of flow in
an established nomological network. We hypothesize that the
DFS–2 will be related to the FQ and predict frequency of ESM
flow experiences. The DFS–2 should also be strongly associated
with lower Neuroticism and higher Conscientiousness and
exhibit at least modest relationships with other FFM domains
(Extraversion +, Openness +). Finally, it is hypothesized that
the DFS–2 will demonstrate stronger criterion-related validity
than the FQ, because of the DFS–2’s higher content validity
and construct representativeness.
METHOD
Participants
Fifty-two undergraduate students (M = 19.2 years, SD =
1.12) at a selective Midwestern liberal arts college in the United
States were recruited for participation. Participants were ran-
domly selected from courses for participation and were con-
tacted via e-mail. One participant failed to complete all mea-
sures and was excluded from analyses. Participants received $30
or extra credit in psychology courses as payment for completion
of the study.
Procedure
Participants attended a mandatory training session explain-
ing the process of the ESM, the methods of the study, and
the procedure for filling out the Experience Sampling Forms
(ESFs). Students were randomly assigned to fill out the single-
administration self-report questionnaires before or after com-
pleting the ESM portion of the study.
Participants received six signals per day for 7 days, yield-
ing 42 possible responses per participant, for a total of 1,856
samplings. Signals were sent via text message to cell phones
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. using Windows Live
Messenger. This 12-hr time period was divided into six 2-hr
intervals; each signal was sent randomly within one of these
intervals, with no signal arriving within 1 hr of the previous
signal. Participants were instructed to fill out an ESF as soon as
possible after receiving the signal, with their entries based on
the activity they were engaged in at the moment they were sig-
naled. Instructions were given that an ESF should not be filled
out more than 30 min after receiving a signal.
Two different operationalizations of flow were utilized, the
first being derived from Asakawa’s (2004) method. For the first
DISPOSITIONAL FLOW SCALE–2
operationalization (FlowPercent), experiences of challenge and
skill had to exceed the group average and be within one raw
score point of each other; individuals’ total such experiences
were divided by their total number of responses and multiplied
by 100 to determine the percentage of time they were in the flow
experience, or FlowPercent. A secondary ESM flow indicator
called InTheZone was also included. The operationalization of
InTheZone was the mean score for the ESF item measuring the
extent to which participants felt they were “in the zone” when
they were signaled. In the zone is an American colloquialism
used by athletes to denote the flow phenomenon (Weinberg &
Gould, 2006). An InTheZone experience is commonly under-
stood to include feelings of intense concentration, effortless
action, and absorption in the moment. This second definition
allows a within-method measure of flow and validity check to
which we can compare our challenge-skill derived flow index.
Measures
Experience Sampling Form. The ESF was completed by
participants each time they received a signal. The measure is
composed of items designed to assess affect (e.g., “happy,”
“friendly”), activation or potency (e.g., “strong,” “active,” “fo-
cused”), and motivation (e.g., “wish to be somewhere else,”
“motivation”), as well as items concerning the participant’s cur-
rent environs and activities (see Asakawa, 2004; Massimini &
Carli, 1988). Additionally, the ESF contains two items assessing
perceived challenge and skill for the current activity in which
the participant is engaged; these items were used to assess the
presence of flow. All nonsetting items are Likert scaled, ranging
from 1 (very little) to 9 (very much). Investigators have used the
ESM to assess the subjective experiences of flow across various
samples (e.g., Japanese college students, Asakawa, 2004; Italian
high school students, Carli et al., 1988; working adults, Csik-
szentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; and U.S. high school students,
Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, & Shernoff, 2003).
Dispositional Flow Scale–2. The DFS–2 (Jackson & Ek-
lund, 2002, 2004) is a dispositional measure of flow that as-
sesses how respondents generally feel when taking part in a
given activity. It was constructed based on Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1975, 1990) nine proposed components of flow. Each compo-
nent is assessed with four items on a Likert scale, ranging from
1 (never) to 5 (always). Coefficient alpha values for the nine
subscales ranged from .80 for Autotelic Experience to .91 for
Clear Goals. DFS–2 total scores had an internal consistency of
.91. Instructions for the DFS–2 were modified to target “any ac-
tivity in life,” rather than participants’ experiences in a specific
activity. This modification allowed for the opportunity to test
the DFS–2 as a measure of autotelic personality.
Flow Questionnaire. The FQ (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson,
1984) consists of two separate questionnaires that were com-
bined to create a four-item response questionnaire used to assess
previous flow experiences. Consistent with Asakawa (2010),
four quotations describing firsthand accounts of the flow expe-
rience are given, and the participant indicates whether or not he
or she has had such an experience (e.g., “My mind isn’t wander-
ing. I am not thinking of something else. I am totally involved in
what I am doing. My body feels good. I don’t seem to hear any-
thing. The world seems to be cut off from me. I am less aware
of myself and my problems.”). Responses were calculated in
467
TABLE 1.—Correlations among autotelic personality measures and ESM flow
indexes.
Variable FlowPercent InTheZone FQDRtot FQStot DFS–2
FlowPercent — .33∗ .12 .24 .34∗
InTheZone — .22 .01 .00
FQDRtot — — .74∗∗ .31∗
FQStot — — .60∗∗
Note. ESM = experience sampling method; InTheZone = average of responses to the
ESM item “In the zone”; FQDRtot = total score from dichotomous response items of the
Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984); FQStot = summed scores from
scales added to Flow Questionnaire items; DFS–2 = Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (Jackson
& Eklund, 2002).
∗
p < .05 level (2-tailed). ∗∗ p < .01 level (2-tailed).
two ways. First, dichotomous responses were summed to form
the FQ Dichotomous Response Total (FQDRtot). Second, we
extended the range of responses to improve the psychometric
properties by adding a 7-point Likert scale with anchors of very
rarely and extremely often. Responses were summed to create
the FQ Scale Total (FQStot). These variables were used to assess
reciprocal convergent validity for the FQ and DFS–2.
NEO Personality Inventory–Revised. The NEO PI–R
(Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item questionnaire used to
assess the five FFM personality domains (i.e., Neuroticism, Ex-
traversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness).
Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. Sample items include “I am not a
worrier” (Neuroticism) and “I have a very active imagination”
(Openness). Domain-level alpha coefficients ranged from .86
for Conscientiousness to .93 for Neuroticism.
RESULTS
Autotelic Personality Measures and Flow Indexes
Zero-order correlations were calculated to determine rela-
tionships among all flow indexes. The DFS–2 was significantly
related to the primary ESM flow index, FlowPercent, although
it was unrelated to the secondary flow index, InTheZone (see
Table 1). We also examined the relationships between specific
DFS–2 subscales and other flow indexes. FQStot was strongly
related to DFS–2 total scores and most DFS–2 subscales. The
DFS–2 subscales Clear Goals and Autotelic Experience trended
toward significance in this analysis (p < .06), with only DFS–2
Unambiguous Feedback being clearly unrelated (p > .50). The
DFS–2 subscales Transformation of Time, Autotelic Experi-
ence, and Loss of Self Consciousness all correlated significantly
with FlowPercent (rs ranging from .33–.41, all p < .05). In The
Zone did not correlate significantly with any DFS–2 subscale.
Autotelic Personality and FFM Personality
Zero-order correlations and multiple regression analyses were
used to examine ESM flow indexes vis-à-vis FFM domains.
With the exception of InTheZone scores with Neuroticism (see
Table 2), no relationships between FFM domains and ESM
flow indexes were detected (p > .05). DFS–2 scores exhibited
strong relationships with Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.
FQStot scores correlated significantly with Neuroticism and
approached significance with Conscientiousness (p = .068).
A multiple regression analysis using NEO PI–R domains to
468 JOHNSON, KEISER, SKARIN, ROSS

TABLE 2.—Correlations of autotelic personality measures and ESM flow indexes

with Five-factor model domains.

Variable FlowPercent InTheZone FQDRtot FQStot DFS–2

Neuroticism −.12 −.34∗ −.11 −.40∗∗ −.64∗∗

Extraversion .20 .09 .19 .09 .32∗
Openness .06 .05 .19 .09 .15
Agreeableness −.10 .18 .22 .26 −.14
Conscientiousness .26 −.18 .19 .29 .64∗∗

Note. ESM = Experience sampling method; InTheZone = average of responses to the

ESM item “in the zone”; FQDRtot = total score from dichotomous response items of the
Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984); FQStot = summed scores from
scales added to Flow Questionnaire items; DFS–2 = modified Dispositional Flow Scale–2
(Jackson & Eklund, 2002).
∗
p < .05 level (2-tailed). ∗∗ p < .01 level (2-tailed).
predict DFS–2 total scores predicted 52% of the variance
in DFS–2 scores (p < .001) with Neuroticism (β = −.47,
p < .005) emerging as a significant predictor and Conscien-
tiousness approaching significance (β = .30, p < .10). Overall,
the DFS–2 was strongly related to FFM personality.
Path Model
To examine the relationships among basic personality (FFM),
DFS–2 global flow, and ESM flow indexes, a path model was
developed. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas
for path model variables are listed in Table 3. Zero-order
correlations in this sample suggested including the following
covariances: Neuroticism with Conscientiousness (r = −.66,
p < .001), Extraversion with Openness (r = .36, p < .05), and
Extraversion with Conscientiousness (r = .44, p < .01). These
were added to the model. The a priori path model fit well, χ 2(3,
N = 51) = 3.342, ns, comparative fit index (CFI) = .990, root
mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = .047. None
of the effects of the FFM domains on FlowPercent were sig-
nificant, nor were the effects of Extraversion and Openness on
DFS–2 total scores; consequently, these parameters were suc-
cessively fixed to zero. Model fit did not degrade significantly,
χ 2 diff(6, N = 51) = 2.912, ns, CFI > .99, RMSEA < .001.
Because they were unrelated to both FlowPercent and DFS–2
total scores, Extraversion and Openness were dropped from the
model. The simpler model fit well, χ 2(2, N = 51) = 2.087,
ns, CFI = .998, RMSEA = .029. The model is depicted in
Figure 1.
TABLE 3.—Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha values for path
model variables.
Variable M SD Cronbach’s alpha
Neuroticism 92.0 19.7 .90
Extraversion 117.6 20.2 .91
Openness 115.2 20.7 .92
Conscientiousness 117.7 17.5 .84
DFS–2 125.9 13.7 .91
FlowPercent 8.9% 7.4%
Note. DFS–2 = Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (Jackson & Eklund, 2002). The original
items were modified so that they referred to general experience in any activity in life rather
than within the context of a specific activity.
FIGURE 1.—Path model of Five-factor model personality, autotelic personality,
and flow experience. DFS–2 = Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (Jackson & Eklund,
2002); FlowPercent = percentage of time spent in flow, as defined by the
percent of experience sampling method responses involving challenge and skill
endorsed above the sample mean for those items and within one point of each
other. Listed parameter estimates are unstandardized/completely standardized.
∗∗∗ p < .005.
DISCUSSION
The findings reported here provide strong, initial support for
the use of the DFS–2 as a measure of autotelic personality. The
DFS–2 predicted a moderate amount of the variation in time
spent in flow (FlowPercent), as defined by challenge-skill bal-
ance in the ESM. In addition, the strong relationship between
the Likert-scaled version of the FQ and DFS–2 total scores pro-
vides reciprocal convergent validity for the modified FQ and the
DFS–2. However, the original dichotomous response version of
the FQ generally failed to correlate significantly with time spent
in flow and the FFM. Researchers should take caution when
using the FQ and only use a Likert-scaled format in assessing
flow when using this measure. Many component subscales of
the DFS–2 also predicted ESM indexes and were related to the
Likert-scaled FQ index. Additionally, our results seem to indi-
cate little to no direct relationship between flow propensity as
measured by behavioral ESM indexes and FFM personality. The
simplest explanation is a lack of statistical power to detect small
effects between the ESM and FFM. Additionally, differences in
method likely contributed to small effects for aggregate ESM
indexes with a single-administration trait measure of the FFM.
Conversely, we found moderate to strong relationships between
the DFS–2 and FFM personality, with overlapping variance ex-
ceeding 50%. Although this estimate is likely inflated by model
overfitting, it does suggest considerable overlap between a pu-
tative measure of general flow propensity (e.g., the DFS–2, tar-
geting general life activities) and FFM traits, a finding that is
consistent with recent investigations of flow and the FFM (see
Ross & Keiser, 2014; Ullén et al., 2012). Further, it is generally
consistent with recently published findings that highlight over-
lap between personality traits and the global DFS–2 index of
flow at 38% to over 50%, depending on the multivariate model
employed (see Ross & Keiser, 2014).
NEO Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were especially po-
tent predictors of global flow, consistent with recent findings by
Ross and Keiser (2014) and Ullén et al. (2012). Individuals who
score highly on the DFS–2 should be less anxious and self-
conscious, with clearer goal focus and persistence than lower
scoring individuals. In addition, a modest to moderate effect was
found for Extraversion and the DFS–2, which might reflect the
increased reward sensitivity of extraverts (Keiser & Ross, 2011)
DISPOSITIONAL FLOW SCALE–2
and those in flow (de Manzano, Theorell, Harmat, & Ullén,
2010). Although the 95% confidence interval for this correla-
tion is 0.05 to 0.55 in this sample, we have reason to believe
that this finding is not sample-specific. Although not found by
Ullén et al. (2012) using a different global index of flow in life
activities, the effect of extraversion (r = .35) was found by Ross
and Keiser (2014) in a much larger sample using the NEO PI–R
and the DFS–2 adapted in the same way as for this study.
Our findings lend themselves to a path model of flow con-
structs (see Figure 1). At one end lies personality constructs,
and at the other end lies flow experiences as measured by the
ESM. Our index of basic personality, the NEO PI–R reflecting
the FFM, is the most proximal measure to basic personality di-
mensions. On the other end, the ESM flow index is the most
proximal measure to flow experiences as states. In between, we
find the DFS–2 as a stable measure of flow propensity. If this
model were accurate, we would expect to find stronger relations
to flow indexes as we move from the trait-personality end toward
the state-flow end. Such a model fits our data quite well. The
DFS–2 appears to have entirely accounted for the relationships
that Neuroticism and Conscientiousness have with ESM flow
propensity, although we might have lacked the power to detect
any covariance that the DFS–2 did not cover. Despite these find-
ings, the sample size in this study does not allow for sufficient
power to clearly answer this question. A major limitation of the
path modeling is that the likelihood of rejecting our proposed
model was low. In setting alpha at either the .05 or .10 levels
for chi-square test of model fit, it gives us a 6% or 11% power,
respectively, to reject the model. Using an RMSEA index of .10
gives us a 22% power to reject the model. Consequently, because
of sample size, this model might provide more heuristic or ex-
ploratory value for future researchers rather than act as a test of
the direct effects of Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, or both in
terms of DFS–2 scores. Similarly, sample-specific inflations of
certain correlations (e.g., between NEO Neuroticism and Con-
scientiousness at .66; most studies find correlations between
these NEO domains in the .20–.30 range, as in Ross, Canada,
& Rausch, 2002) suggest the need for replication using larger
samples. For example, although only Neuroticism and Consci-
entiousness accounted for significant variance in DFS–2 global
scores, Ross and Keiser (2014) found that Extraversion and
Agreeableness were also important. Null findings for Openness
suggest that it might have less to do with characterizing autotelic
personality as measured by flow propensity than originally hy-
pothesized.
The correlation between ESM index of FlowPercent might
indicate a theoretical cap on the strength of relationship that
cross-method flow propensity measures could exhibit with
FlowPercent. The trait flow measures, however, use a one-time
self-report method. This cross-method, within-method distinc-
tion is important, as the within-method comparison would pos-
sess the greatest potential for demonstrating a high correla-
tion because of common methods variance (Campbell & Fiske,
1959). The effect size in predicting ESM flow states from the
DFS–2 is consistent with previous ESM studies predicting spe-
cific behaviors from traits (Scollon et al., 2003) and might be as
high as can be expected when only a limited slice of a particu-
lar trait’s manifestations is analyzed (see Fleeson & Gallagher,
2009). Although challenge-skill balance might be important to
flow, it is only one part of the experience (Engeser & Rheinberg,
2008). Autotelic personality should have other manifestations
469
beyond this balance (i.e., propensity to experience the other ma-
jor components of flow). Despite these limitations, the DFS–2
predicted the ESM flow index as well as the “in the zone” mean
from the ESM itself. These issues are particularly pervasive in
ESM studies that typically, although not always, include small
sample sizes in the range of 40 to 60 participants (see Verduyn,
Delvaux, Van Coillie, Tuerlinckx, & Van Mechelen, 2009).
Our findings advance the literature by providing convergent
and criterion-related validity for the DFS–2 as a measure of
autotelic personality. We showed that a potential measure of
autotelic personality succeeds in predicting the classic indicator
of flow states in situ. Future investigations should include larger
sample sizes that would possess the sensitivity and power neces-
sary to discern the subtle relationships among basic personality,
autotelic personality, and the flow experience.
REFERENCES
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. doi:10.1023/B:JOHS.0000035915.97836.89
Asakawa, K. (2010). Flow experience, culture, and well-being: How do autotelic
Japanese college students feel, behave, and think in their daily lives? Journal
of Happiness Studies, 11, 205–223. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9132-3
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
doi:10.1037/h0046016
Carli, M., Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). The quality of experience in the flow
channels: Comparison of Italian and U.S. students. In I. Csikszentmihalyi &
M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of
flow in consciousness (pp. 364–383). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional man-
ual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 15, 41–63. doi:10.1177/002216787501500306
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and
growth in the teenage years. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work
and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815
de Manzano, O., Theorell, T., Harmat, L., & Ullén, F. (2010). The psychophys-
iology of flow during piano playing. Emotion, 10, 301–311.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of
challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158–172.
Fiske, D. (1971). Measuring the concepts of personality. Oxford, UK: Aldine.
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing
for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-
sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 1097–1114. doi:10.1037/a0016786
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, 33–150. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The Flow Scales manual. Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Jackson, S., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to
measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J., & Eklund, R. C. (2008). Long and short measures of
flow: The construct validity of the FSS–2, DFS–2, and new brief counterparts.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 561–587.
470
Keiser, H. N., & Ross, S. R. (2011). Carver and White’s BIS/FFS/BAS scales
and domains and facets of the Five factor model of personality. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 51, 39–44. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.
007
Keller, J., Ringelham, S., & Blomann, F. (2011). Does skills-demands com-
patibility result in intrinsic motivation? Experimental test of a basic notion
proposed in the theory of flow experiences. Journal of Positive Psychology,
6, 408–417.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in
daily experience. In Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow
in consciousness (pp. 266–287). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Ross, S. R., Canada, K. E., & Rausch, M. K. (2002). Self-handicapping
and the Five factor model of personality: Mediation between neuroti-
cism and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
1173–1184.
Ross, S. R., & Keiser, H. N. (2014). Autotelic personality through a Five-factor
lens: Individual differences in flow propensity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 59, 3–8.
JOHNSON, KEISER, SKARIN, ROSS
Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling:
Promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Stud-
ies, 4, 5–34. doi:10.1023/A:1023605205115
Shernoff, D., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. (2003).
Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspec-
tive of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176.
doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
Ullén, F., de Manzano, Ö., Almeida, R., Magnusson, P. E., Pedersen, N. L.,
Nakamura, J., . . . Madison, G. (2012). Proneness for psychological flow in
everyday life: Associations with personality and intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 167–172. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.003
Verduyn, P., Delvaux, E., Van Coillie, H., Tuerlinckx, F., & Van Mechelen,
I. (2009). Predicting the duration of emotional experience: Two experience
sampling studies. Emotion, 9, 83–91.
Wang, C., Liu, W., & Khoo, A. (2009). The psychometric properties of Dispo-
sitional Flow Scale–2 in Internet gaming. Current Psychology: Research and
Reviews, 28, 194–201. doi:10.1007/s12144-009-9058-x
Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (2006). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology
(4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Copyright of Journal of Personality Assessment is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.